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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30501474)

  • 1. The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors.
    Curley LJ; MacLean R; Murray J; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 59(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 30501474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Munro J; Lages M; Frumkin LA; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2022; 29(3):323-344. PubMed ID: 35898612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Informing reform: The views of legal professionals on the unique aspects of Scottish Law.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Frumkin LA; Turner J
    Med Sci Law; 2021 Oct; 61(4):256-265. PubMed ID: 33596724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0212491. PubMed ID: 30779768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of pretrial publicity on male and female jurors and judges in a mock rape trial.
    Riedel RG
    Psychol Rep; 1993 Dec; 73(3 Pt 1):819-32. PubMed ID: 8302986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The emotional child witness: effects on juror decision-making.
    Cooper A; Quas JA; Cleveland KC
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(6):813-28. PubMed ID: 25537438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Threshold point utilisation in juror decision-making.
    Curley LJ; MacLean R; Murray J; Pollock AC; Laybourn P
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2019; 26(1):110-128. PubMed ID: 31984068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.
    Carlson KA; Russo JE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Faith in thy threshold.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2018 Oct; 58(4):239-250. PubMed ID: 30060713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The impact of frequency of behavior and type of contact on judgments involving a criminal stalking case.
    Magyarics CL; Lynch KR; Golding JM; Lippert A
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Dec; 39(6):602-13. PubMed ID: 26237334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.