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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30056502)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Personal experiences of the Criminal Justice System by individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
    Helverschou SB; Steindal K; Nøttestad JA; Howlin P
    Autism; 2018 May; 22(4):460-468. PubMed ID: 28325062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
    McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Eyewitness Memory Reports in Autism.
    Maras K; Norris JE; Brewer N
    Autism Res; 2020 Nov; 13(11):2017-2029. PubMed ID: 32052919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect.
    Abshire J; Bornstein BH
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Oct; 27(5):471-80. PubMed ID: 14593793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The Effect of Delayed Reporting on Mock-Juror Decision-Making in the Era of #MeToo.
    Fraser BM; Pica E; Pozzulo JD
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Jul; 37(13-14):NP11791-NP11810. PubMed ID: 33636996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Statements from Youth in Legal Contexts: Effects of Consistency, Legal Role, and Age.
    Molinaro PF; Malloy LC
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):139-59. PubMed ID: 27021412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The Failure of All Mothers or the Mother of All Failures? Juror Perceptions of Failure to Protect Laws.
    Stanziani M; Cox J
    J Interpers Violence; 2021 Jan; 36(1-2):NP690-NP711. PubMed ID: 29294952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Modelling the effects of crime type and evidence on judgments about guilt.
    Pearson JM; Law JR; Skene JAG; Beskind DH; Vidmar N; Ball DA; Malekpour A; Carter RM; Skene JHP
    Nat Hum Behav; 2018 Nov; 2(11):856-866. PubMed ID: 30931399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Drawing the answers: Sketching to support free and probed recall by child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder.
    Mattison M; Dando CJ; Ormerod TC
    Autism; 2018 Feb; 22(2):181-194. PubMed ID: 29490481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.
    Parrott CT; Brodsky SL; Wilson JK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():67-74. PubMed ID: 26346686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. The impact of proficiency testing information and error aversions on the weight given to fingerprint evidence.
    Mitchell G; Garrett BL
    Behav Sci Law; 2019 Mar; 37(2):195-210. PubMed ID: 30883891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Who Is the Rotten Apple? Mock Jurors' Views of Teacher-Student Sexual Contact.
    Anderson A; Wingrove T; Fox P; McLean K; Styer E
    J Interpers Violence; 2018 May; 33(9):1449-1471. PubMed ID: 26621035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.