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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29809027)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.
    Devenport JL; Stinson V; Cutler BL; Kravitz DA
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Dec; 87(6):1042-54. PubMed ID: 12558212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence.
    Sauer JD; Palmer MA; Brewer N
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Aug; 41(4):375-384. PubMed ID: 28191988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review.
    Slane CR; Dodson CS
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.
    Rodriguez DN; Berry MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Feb; 44(1):71-87. PubMed ID: 31535891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The influence of race on jurors' perceptions of lethal police use of force.
    Ewanation L; Maeder EM
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):53-67. PubMed ID: 36931849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making.
    Anderson L; Gross J; Sonne T; Zajac R; Hayne H
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):200-17. PubMed ID: 26879737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors' Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence.
    Thompson WC; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1379-1388. PubMed ID: 30791101
    [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. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors.
    Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Can jurors be biased in their evaluation of third-party evidence within cases of rape?
    Parsons A; Mojtahedi D
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2022; 85():101837. PubMed ID: 36122514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Face-to-face confrontation: effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Tobey AE; Batterman-Faunce JM; Orcutt H; Thomas S; Shapiro C; Sachsenmaier T
    Law Hum Behav; 1998 Apr; 22(2):165-203. PubMed ID: 9566121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.