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: 27720501)

  • 1. Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making.
    Maeder EM; Yamamoto S; Zannella L
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 49(Pt A):154-159. PubMed ID: 27720501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Juror decision making in not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder trials: Effects of defendant gender and mental illness type.
    Mossière A; Maeder EM
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 49(Pt A):47-54. PubMed ID: 27237958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Determining criminal responsibility: How relevant are insight and personal attitudes to mock jurors?
    Jung S
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():37-42. PubMed ID: 26294081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.
    Crocker CB; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):212-26. PubMed ID: 19644740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Controversies Concerning the Canadian Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act.
    Lacroix R; O'Shaughnessy R; McNiel DE; Binder RL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2017 Mar; 45(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 28270462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: a path analytic approach.
    Poulson RL; Brondino MJ; Brown H; Braithwaite RL
    Psychol Rep; 1998 Feb; 82(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9520530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas.
    Tate B; Yelderman LA
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2022; 29(6):809-831. PubMed ID: 36267606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are consistent juror decisions related to fast and frugal decision making? Investigating the relationship between juror consistency, decision speed and cue utilisation.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P
    Med Sci Law; 2017 Oct; 57(4):211-219. PubMed ID: 28992745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity.
    Rendell JA; Huss MT; Jensen ML
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):411-25. PubMed ID: 20014145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
    Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
    J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: an examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms.
    Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Feb; 26(1):43-72. PubMed ID: 11868620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Tightening the reins: recent trend in the application of the insanity defence in Canada.
    Verdun-Jones SN
    Med Law; 1991; 10(3):285-304. PubMed ID: 1943514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The military insanity defense.
    Lande RG
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1991; 19(2):193-201. PubMed ID: 1873574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dynamic and static factors associated with discharge dispositions: the national trajectory project of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada.
    Crocker AG; Nicholls TL; Charette Y; Seto MC
    Behav Sci Law; 2014 Sep; 32(5):577-95. PubMed ID: 25236295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How can forensic systems improve justice for victims of offenders found not criminally responsible?
    Quinn J; Simpson AI
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2013; 41(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 24335331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.
    Hope L; Memon A; McGeorge P
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Jun; 10(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15222805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Insanity defense pleas in Baltimore City: an analysis of outcome.
    Janofsky JS; Dunn MH; Roskes EJ; Briskin JK; Rudolph MS
    Am J Psychiatry; 1996 Nov; 153(11):1464-8. PubMed ID: 8890682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Defendant mental illness and juror decision-making: A comparison of sample types.
    Mossière A; Maeder EM
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():58-66. PubMed ID: 26314888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The negligible effects of California's 1982 reform of the insanity defense test.
    McGreevy MA; Steadman HJ; Callahan LA
    Am J Psychiatry; 1991 Jun; 148(6):744-50. PubMed ID: 2035715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A third verdict option: exploring the impact of the not proven verdict on mock juror decision making.
    Hope L; Greene E; Memon A; Gavisk M; Houston K
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):241-52. PubMed ID: 17703354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.