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 *

272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25043830)

  • 1. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Jurors report that risk measure scores matter in sexually violent predator trials, but that other factors matter more.
    Turner DB; Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Harris PB
    Behav Sci Law; 2015 Feb; 33(1):56-73. PubMed ID: 25613035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Expert testimony in sexually violent predator commitments: conceptualizing legal standards of "mental disorder" and "likely to reoffend".
    Sreenivasan S; Weinberger LE; Garrick T
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2003; 31(4):471-85. PubMed ID: 14974803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony.
    Guy LS; Edens JF
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):215-37. PubMed ID: 12645046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The biasing effect of the "sexually violent predator" label on legal decisions.
    Scurich N; Gongola J; Krauss DA
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 47():109-14. PubMed ID: 27206709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Should forensic psychiatrists testify about evil?
    Simon RI
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2003; 31(4):413-6. PubMed ID: 14974794
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.
    Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Kyger M; Lehoux M
    Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):507-26. PubMed ID: 17620274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Risk communication in sexually violent predator hearings.
    Scott S; Gilcrist B; Thurston N; Huss MT
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):322-36. PubMed ID: 19908210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?
    Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Guarnera LA; Rufino KA
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Oct; 24(10):1889-97. PubMed ID: 23969777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.
    Levett LM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Aug; 32(4):363-74. PubMed ID: 17940854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
    McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How likely is "likely to reoffend" in sex offender civil commitment trials?
    Knighton JC; Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Turner DB
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):293-304. PubMed ID: 24885113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Face-to-face confrontation: effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Tobey AE; Batterman-Faunce JM; Orcutt H; Thomas S; Shapiro C; Sachsenmaier T
    Law Hum Behav; 1998 Apr; 22(2):165-203. PubMed ID: 9566121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When experts disagreed, who was correct? A comparison of PCL-R scores from independent raters and opposing forensic experts.
    Rufino KA; Boccaccini MT; Hawes SW; Murrie DC
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Dec; 36(6):527-37. PubMed ID: 22353047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.