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 *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30454558)

  • 1. Judges' perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence.
    Moulin V; Mouchet C; Pillonel T; Gkotsi GM; Baertschi B; Gasser J; Testé B
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2018; 61():22-29. PubMed ID: 30454558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Neuroscience in the Courtroom: From responsibility to dangerousness, ethical issues raised by the new French law].
    Gkotsi GM; Moulin V; Gasser J
    Encephale; 2015 Oct; 41(5):385-93. PubMed ID: 25439859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Neuroscience in forensic psychiatry: From responsibility to dangerousness. Ethical and legal implications of using neuroscience for dangerousness assessments.
    Gkotsi GM; Gasser J
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 46():58-67. PubMed ID: 27209602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrists expert witnesses: A case study.
    Gkotsi GM; Gasser J; Moulin V
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 65():101359. PubMed ID: 29909218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?
    Kovera MB; McAuliff BD
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Aug; 85(4):574-86. PubMed ID: 10948802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.
    Gatowski SI; Dobbin SA; Richardson JT; Ginsburg GP; Merlino ML; Dahir V
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Oct; 25(5):433-58. PubMed ID: 11688367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 'What on earth can this possibly mean'? French reentry courts and experts' risk assessment.
    Herzog-Evans M
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 44():98-108. PubMed ID: 26338494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence.
    Chorn JA; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Dec; 43(6):542-557. PubMed ID: 31524421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Unloading the hired gun: Inoculation effects in expert witness testimony.
    Ziemke MH; Brodsky SL
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():91-7. PubMed ID: 26299600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Issues pertaining to expert evidence and the reasoning about punishment in a neuroscience-based sentencing appeal.
    McCay A; Ryan CJ
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 65():101409. PubMed ID: 30591221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [A nationwide questionnaire survey of medical experts in mental health evaluation].
    Koike J; Morita N; Nakatani Y
    Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi; 2009; 111(1):10-23. PubMed ID: 19301591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility for schizophrenic persons accused of murder: Study with experts of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2016 Aug; 42(4):296-303. PubMed ID: 26471517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How Do Legal Experts Cope With Medical Reports and Forensic Evidence? The Experiences, Perceptions, and Narratives of Swiss Judges and Other Legal Experts.
    Canela C; Buadze A; Dube A; Jackowski C; Pude I; Nellen R; Signorini P; Liebrenz M
    Front Psychiatry; 2019; 10():18. PubMed ID: 30814957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony.
    Merlino ML; Murray CI; Richardson JT
    Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review.
    Aono D; Yaffe G; Kober H
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2019 Oct; 4(1):40. PubMed ID: 31641963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states.
    Brown T; Murphy E
    Stanford Law Rev; 2010 Apr; 62(4):1119-208. PubMed ID: 20429137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Neuroscience in the courtroom? We first need a protocol].
    Merckelbach HL; Merckelbach SE
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2014; 158():A7020. PubMed ID: 25017979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Judges' views of child sexual abuse: evaluating beliefs against research findings in a Finnish sample.
    Korkman J; Svanbäck J; Finnilä K; Santtila P
    Scand J Psychol; 2014 Oct; 55(5):497-504. PubMed ID: 25040839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.