These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21766326)

  • 21. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
    Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
    J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Expert testimony influences juror decisions in criminal trials involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
    Khurshid A; Jacquin KM
    J Child Sex Abus; 2013; 22(8):949-67. PubMed ID: 24283545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
    Cooper J; Hall J
    Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
    Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses.
    Montgomery JH; Ciccone JR; Garvey SP; Eisenberg T
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(4):509-18. PubMed ID: 16394228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments.
    Semmler C; Brewer N
    Behav Sci Law; 2002; 20(4):423-36. PubMed ID: 12210977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.
    Stevenson MC; McCracken E; Watson A; Petty T; Plogher T
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Apr; 47(2):348-366. PubMed ID: 37053386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM; Seib HM
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):524-41. PubMed ID: 15161410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions.
    Corwin EP; Cramer RJ; Griffin DA; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 22396340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. What makes recovered-memory testimony compelling to jurors?
    Coleman BL; Stevens MJ; Reeder GD
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Aug; 25(4):317-38. PubMed ID: 11501437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Potential jurors' opinions on the effects of hypnosis on eyewitness identification: a brief communication.
    Labelle L; Lamarche MC; Laurence JR
    Int J Clin Exp Hypn; 1990 Oct; 38(4):315-9. PubMed ID: 2258247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence.
    Woody WD; Forrest KD
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):333-60. PubMed ID: 19405020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults.
    Schuller RA; Ryan A; Krauss D; Jenkins G
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2013; 36(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23433947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Elder sexual abuse and implicit agism: examining the warm-incompetent bias among mock jurors.
    Syme ML; Cohn TJ
    J Elder Abuse Negl; 2020; 32(1):1-26. PubMed ID: 31760911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.
    MacCoun RJ; Kerr NL
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1988 Jan; 54(1):21-33. PubMed ID: 3346806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing.
    ForsterLee L; Horowitz I; Athaide-Victor E; Brown N
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):259-70. PubMed ID: 10810841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Credibility in the courtroom: how likeable should an expert witness be?
    Brodsky SL; Neal TM; Cramer RJ; Ziemke MH
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 20019000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.
    Bright DA; Goodman-Delahunty J
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):183-202. PubMed ID: 16786406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.