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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30779768)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The Impact of Prior Trial Experience on Mock Jurors' Note Taking During Trials and Recall of Trial Evidence.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():47. PubMed ID: 30733695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The impact of note taking style and note availability at retrieval on mock jurors' recall and recognition of trial information.
    Thorley C; Baxter RE; Lorek J
    Memory; 2016; 24(4):560-74. PubMed ID: 25853172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence.
    London K; Nunez N
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):932-9. PubMed ID: 11125657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Mnemonic Consequences of Jurors' Selective Retrieval During Deliberation.
    Jay ACV; Stone CB; Meksin R; Merck C; Gordon NS; Hirst W
    Top Cogn Sci; 2019 Oct; 11(4):627-643. PubMed ID: 31231981
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: a path analytic approach.
    Poulson RL; Brondino MJ; Brown H; Braithwaite RL
    Psychol Rep; 1998 Feb; 82(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9520530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. White mock jurors' moral emotional responses to viewing female victim photographs depend on the victim's race.
    Phalen HJ; Salerno JM; Adamoli M; Nadler J
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Dec; 47(6):666-685. PubMed ID: 38127550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Jurors' cognitive depletion and performance during jury deliberation as a function of jury diversity and defendant race.
    Peter-Hagene L
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Jun; 43(3):232-249. PubMed ID: 31120276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors' application of instructions.
    Baguley CM; McKimmie BM; Masser BM
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Jun; 41(3):284-304. PubMed ID: 28182459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Younger and older jurors: the influence of environmental supports on memory performance and decision making in complex trials.
    Fitzgerald JM
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2000 Nov; 55(6):P323-31. PubMed ID: 11078102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends.
    Pate M; Kienzle M; Vogler V
    Behav Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 37(1):78-89. PubMed ID: 30266044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts.
    Katzman J; Fessinger MB; Bornstein BH; McWilliams K
    Behav Sci Law; 2022 Nov; 40(6):835-858. PubMed ID: 36226574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors.
    Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.
    Shaw EV; Lynch M; Laguna S; Frenda SJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):215-228. PubMed ID: 34351204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM; Seib HM
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):524-41. PubMed ID: 15161410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.