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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27598561)

  • 1. Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.
    Devine DJ; Krouse PC; Cavanaugh CM; Basora JC
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):670-682. PubMed ID: 27598561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: data from the field.
    Devine DJ; Buddenbaum J; Houp S; Studebaker N; Stolle DP
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Apr; 33(2):136-48. PubMed ID: 18546064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Jurors' cognitive depletion and performance during jury deliberation as a function of jury diversity and defendant race.
    Peter-Hagene L
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Jun; 43(3):232-249. PubMed ID: 31120276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.
    Shaw EV; Lynch M; Laguna S; Frenda SJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):215-228. PubMed ID: 34351204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The Mnemonic Consequences of Jurors' Selective Retrieval During Deliberation.
    Jay ACV; Stone CB; Meksin R; Merck C; Gordon NS; Hirst W
    Top Cogn Sci; 2019 Oct; 11(4):627-643. PubMed ID: 31231981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Inferring models of opinion dynamics from aggregated jury data.
    Burghardt K; Rand W; Girvan M
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(7):e0218312. PubMed ID: 31260463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mock jury trials in Taiwan--paving the ground for introducing lay participation.
    Huang KC; Lin CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Aug; 38(4):367-77. PubMed ID: 24707909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Proven and not proven: A potential alternative to the current Scottish verdict system.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Turner J; Frumkin LA; Jackson E; Lages M
    Behav Sci Law; 2022 May; 40(3):452-466. PubMed ID: 35460096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis.
    Hoetger LA; Devine DJ; Brank EM; Drew RM; Rees R
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):121-139. PubMed ID: 35084906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.
    MacCoun RJ; Kerr NL
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1988 Jan; 54(1):21-33. PubMed ID: 3346806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation.
    Salerno JM; Diamond SS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Apr; 17(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 20382916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Should jurors be allowed to discuss trial evidence before deliberation?: New research evidence.
    Kerr NL; Jung J
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Oct; 42(5):413-426. PubMed ID: 30160495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Factors predicting conviction in child stranger rape.
    Lundrigan S; Dhami MK; Agudelo K
    Child Abuse Negl; 2020 Mar; 101():104242. PubMed ID: 31869697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The impact of misinformation presented during jury deliberation on juror memory and decision-making.
    Cullen HJ; Dilevski N; Nitschke FT; Ribeiro G; Brind S; Woolley N
    Front Psychol; 2024; 15():1232228. PubMed ID: 38344276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.