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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27982750)

  • 41. Judging jury service: results of the North Carolina administrative office of the courts juror survey.
    Cutler BL; Hughes DM
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(2):305-20. PubMed ID: 11385704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Sexual harassment stories: testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation.
    Huntley JE; Costanzo M
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Feb; 27(1):29-51. PubMed ID: 12647466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis.
    Steblay N; Hosch HM; Culhane SE; McWethy A
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):469-92. PubMed ID: 16906469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. How jurors use and misuse character evidence.
    Hunt JS; Budesheim TL
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):347-61. PubMed ID: 15065980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill.
    Terrance CA; Matheson K; Spanos NP
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):207-29. PubMed ID: 10810839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The effects of British and American trial procedures on the quality of juror decision-making.
    Collett ME; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Aug; 27(4):403-22. PubMed ID: 12916228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.
    Neuschatz JS; Lawson DS; Swanner JK; Meissner CA; Neuschatz JS
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Apr; 32(2):137-49. PubMed ID: 17703355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony.
    Guy LS; Edens JF
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):215-37. PubMed ID: 12645046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Fostering juror comfort: effects of an orientation videotape.
    Bradshaw GS; Ross DF; Bradshaw EE; Headrick B; Thomas WN
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Aug; 29(4):457-67. PubMed ID: 16133949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Moral foundations and juror verdict justifications.
    Yamamoto S; Maeder EM; Bailey L
    J Soc Psychol; 2024 Mar; 164(2):251-257. PubMed ID: 36682361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror decisions: the importance of examining multiple stereotypes.
    Nunez N; McCoy ML; Clark HL; Shaw LA
    Law Hum Behav; 1999 Aug; 23(4):413-23. PubMed ID: 10439725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
    Cooper J; Hall J
    Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Jury decision making research: are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?
    Nuñez N; McCrea SM; Culhane SE
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):439-51. PubMed ID: 21351132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
    Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.
    Kovera MB; McAuliff BD; Hebert KS
    J Appl Psychol; 1999 Jun; 84(3):362-75. PubMed ID: 10380417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The impact of negative forensic evidence on mock jurors' perceptions of a trial of drug-facilitated sexual assault.
    Jenkins G; Schuller RA
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Aug; 31(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 17211690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.