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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26650237)

  • 1. The Novel New Jersey Eyewitness Instruction Induces Skepticism but Not Sensitivity.
    Papailiou AP; Yokum DV; Robertson CT
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(12):e0142695. PubMed ID: 26650237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test.
    Jones AM; Bergold AN; Penrod S
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(3):366-385. PubMed ID: 33071546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration.
    Modjadidi K; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Jun; 42(3):244-257. PubMed ID: 29809027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.
    Devenport JL; Stinson V; Cutler BL; Kravitz DA
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Dec; 87(6):1042-54. PubMed ID: 12558212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):225-36. PubMed ID: 18597165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence.
    Safer MA; Murphy RP; Wise RA; Bussey L; Millett C; Holfeld B
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 47():86-92. PubMed ID: 27037161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Lineup administrators' expectations: their impact on eyewitness confidence.
    Garrioch L; Brimacombe CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Jun; 25(3):299-315. PubMed ID: 11480805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?
    Henderson KS; Levett LM
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):638-649. PubMed ID: 27243361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.
    Rodriguez DN; Berry MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Feb; 44(1):71-87. PubMed ID: 31535891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence.
    Sauer JD; Palmer MA; Brewer N
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Aug; 41(4):375-384. PubMed ID: 28191988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. PC_Eyewitness: evaluating the New Jersey method.
    MacLin OH; Phelan CM
    Behav Res Methods; 2007 May; 39(2):242-7. PubMed ID: 17695351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sleep and eyewitness memory: Fewer false identifications after sleep when the target is absent from the lineup.
    Stepan ME; Dehnke TM; Fenn KM
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0182907. PubMed ID: 28877169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Can Lineup Administrators Blind to the Suspect's Identity Influence Witnesses' Decisions?
    McCallum NA; Brewer N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(1):93-105. PubMed ID: 31984009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.
    Greathouse SM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):70-82. PubMed ID: 18594956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):575-604. PubMed ID: 16254744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):194-212. PubMed ID: 18600436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.