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 *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27227274)

  • 1. Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession.
    Woestehoff SA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):564-79. PubMed ID: 27227274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Defendant stereotypicality moderates the effect of confession evidence on judgments of guilt.
    Smalarz L; Madon S; Turosak A
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Aug; 42(4):355-368. PubMed ID: 29939062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of confession evidence on jurors' verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Mindthoff A; Ferreira PA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Jun; 48(3):163-181. PubMed ID: 38949764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors' Perceptions of Recanted Confessions.
    Ewanation L; Maeder EM
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():699077. PubMed ID: 34539496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mock jurors' perceptions and case decisions following a juvenile interrogation: Investigating the roles of interested adults and confession type.
    Mindthoff A; Malloy LC; Höhs JM
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Jun; 44(3):209-222. PubMed ID: 32496092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Gender, Generations, and Guilt: Defendant Gender and Age Affect Jurors' Decisions and Perceptions in an Intimate Partner Homicide Trial.
    Ruva CL; Smith KD; Sykes EC
    J Interpers Violence; 2023 Dec; 38(23-24):12089-12112. PubMed ID: 37602736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the 'common sense' hypothesis.
    Grove LJ; Kukucka J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2021; 28(2):185-205. PubMed ID: 34712091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*
    Kukucka J; Hiley A; Kassin SM
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1978-1990. PubMed ID: 32790911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence.
    Greenspan R; Scurich N
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):650-659. PubMed ID: 27149289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Mosaic or Melting Pot? Race and Juror Decision Making in Canada and the United States.
    Maeder EM; McManus LA
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Jan; 37(1-2):NP991-NP1012. PubMed ID: 32401133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions.
    Moffa MS; Platania J
    Psychol Rep; 2007 Apr; 100(2):563-70. PubMed ID: 17564233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. False confessions, expert testimony, and admissibility.
    Watson C; Weiss KJ; Pouncey C
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2010; 38(2):174-86. PubMed ID: 20542936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.