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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27037161)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Eyewitness testimony.
    Wells GL; Olson EA
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2003; 54():277-95. PubMed ID: 12209024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: in search of common sense.
    Houston KA; Hope L; Memon A; Don Read J
    Behav Sci Law; 2013; 31(5):637-51. PubMed ID: 24000168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Jun; 39(3):294-310. PubMed ID: 25495716
    [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. Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.
    Maeder EM; Pica E
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Dec; 38(6):560-8. PubMed ID: 25180762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Crime Scene Familiarity: Does it Influence Mock Jurors' Decisions?
    Pica E; Pozzulo J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(5):745-759. PubMed ID: 31983986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence.
    Garrett BL; Crozier WE; Grady R
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Jul; 65(4):1199-1209. PubMed ID: 32320075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(3):437-451. PubMed ID: 31984031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Psychologists in the eyewitness world.
    Loftus EF
    Am Psychol; 1993 May; 48(5):550-2. PubMed ID: 8507051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Commentary: evidence-based practice and forensic psychiatry.
    Schneider RD
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):503-8. PubMed ID: 20018998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends.
    Pate M; Kienzle M; Vogler V
    Behav Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 37(1):78-89. PubMed ID: 30266044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The confluence of evidence-based practice and Daubert within the fields of forensic psychiatry and the law.
    Glancy GD; Saini M
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):438-41. PubMed ID: 20018992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments.
    Brewer N; Burke A
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):353-64. PubMed ID: 12061623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.