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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24933173)

  • 21. "Race salience" in juror decision-making: misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions.
    Sommers SR; Ellsworth PC
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(4):599-609. PubMed ID: 19513991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases.
    Greathouse SM; Sothmann FC; Levett LM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Dec; 35(6):427-39. PubMed ID: 20936334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessing pretrial publicity effects: integrating content analytic results.
    Studebaker CA; Robbennolt JK; Pathak-Sharma MK; Penrod SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Jun; 24(3):317-36. PubMed ID: 10846375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Jury panel member perceptions of interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy predict support for execution in a capital murder trial simulation.
    Cox J; Clark JC; Edens JF; Smith ST; Magyar MS
    Behav Sci Law; 2013; 31(4):411-28. PubMed ID: 23754472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis.
    Bornstein BH; Golding JM; Neuschatz J; Kimbrough C; Reed K; Magyarics C; Luecht K
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Feb; 41(1):13-28. PubMed ID: 27762572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Judging jury service: results of the North Carolina administrative office of the courts juror survey.
    Cutler BL; Hughes DM
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(2):305-20. PubMed ID: 11385704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Mock jury research: where do we go from here?
    Wiener RL; Krauss DA; Lieberman JD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):467-79. PubMed ID: 21706517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.
    Reed K; Hans VP; Rotenstein V; Helm RK; Rodriguez A; McKendall P; Reyna VF
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Apr; 48(2):83-103. PubMed ID: 38602803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Jury decision making research: are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?
    Nuñez N; McCrea SM; Culhane SE
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):439-51. PubMed ID: 21351132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment.
    Mitchell TL; Haw RM; Pfeifer JE; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Dec; 29(6):621-37. PubMed ID: 16382353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial?
    Douglas KS; Lyon DR; Ogloff JR
    Law Hum Behav; 1997 Oct; 21(5):485-501. PubMed ID: 9374603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. N.C. Supreme Court upholds exclusion of HIV in jury selection.
    AIDS Policy Law; 1995 Sep; 10(16):3-4. PubMed ID: 11362769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The emotional child witness: effects on juror decision-making.
    Cooper A; Quas JA; Cleveland KC
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(6):813-28. PubMed ID: 25537438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making.
    Maeder EM; Yamamoto S; Zannella L
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 49(Pt A):154-159. PubMed ID: 27720501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence.
    London K; Nunez N
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):932-9. PubMed ID: 11125657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service.
    Boatright RG
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(2):285-304. PubMed ID: 11385703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. The court of public opinion: lay perceptions of polygraph testing.
    Myers B; Latter R; Abdollahi-Arena MK
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):509-23. PubMed ID: 16718577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making.
    Greene E; Cahill BS
    Behav Sci Law; 2012; 30(3):280-96. PubMed ID: 22213023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.