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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31924285)

  • 1. Combining evidence in complex cases - a practical approach to interdisciplinary casework.
    de Koeijer JA; Sjerps MJ; Vergeer P; Berger CEH
    Sci Justice; 2020 Jan; 60(1):20-29. PubMed ID: 31924285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts.
    Reid CA; Howes LM
    Sci Justice; 2020 Mar; 60(2):108-119. PubMed ID: 32111283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena.
    Broeders AP
    Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Jun; 159(2-3):148-57. PubMed ID: 16226860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: a survey of the courts and bar.
    Redding RE; Floyd MY; Hawk GL
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(4):583-94. PubMed ID: 11568962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Forensic Gait Analysis and Recognition: Standards of Evidence Admissibility.
    Macoveciuc I; Rando CJ; Borrion H
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1294-1303. PubMed ID: 30791120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T.
    Berger CE; Buckleton J; Champod C; Evett IW; Jackson G
    Sci Justice; 2011 Jun; 51(2):43-9. PubMed ID: 21605824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony.
    Eastwood J; Caldwell J
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Nov; 60(6):1523-8. PubMed ID: 26234166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Presenting evidence for the court.
    Hartigan-Go K
    Int J Risk Saf Med; 2012; 24(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 22436261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stop needless dispute of science in the courts.
    Neuberger D
    Nature; 2016 Mar; 531(7592):9. PubMed ID: 26935661
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Resolving differing expert opinions.
    Montani I; Marquis R; Egli Anthonioz N; Champod C
    Sci Justice; 2019 Jan; 59(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 30654962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Medical evidence and proof of cause of death in Nigerian courts.
    Obafunwa JO; Ajayi O; Okoye MI
    Med Sci Law; 2018 Apr; 58(2):122-134. PubMed ID: 29381106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents.
    Thompson WC; Newman EJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Aug; 39(4):332-49. PubMed ID: 25984887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Weakening forensic science in Spain: from expert evidence to documentary evidence.
    Lucena-Molina JJ; Pardo-Iranzo V; Gonzalez-Rodriguez J
    J Forensic Sci; 2012 Jul; 57(4):952-63. PubMed ID: 22329955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge.
    Klee CH; Friedman HJ
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Issues and opportunities: the application of the numerical likelihood ratio framework to forensic speaker comparison.
    Gold E; Hughes V
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):292-9. PubMed ID: 25002047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing evidence and testing appropriate hypotheses.
    Fenton N
    Sci Justice; 2014 Dec; 54(6):502-4. PubMed ID: 25498940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Case histories as evidence.
    Herxheimer A; Healy D; Menkes DB
    Int J Risk Saf Med; 2012; 24(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 22436256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions.
    Champod C; Evett IW; Jackson G
    Sci Justice; 2004; 44(3):153-64. PubMed ID: 15270454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?
    Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Guarnera LA; Rufino KA
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Oct; 24(10):1889-97. PubMed ID: 23969777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer-reviewed forensic consultation in practice: multidisciplinary oversight in common expertise.
    Welner M; Davey EE; Bernstein A
    J Forensic Sci; 2014 Sep; 59(5):1254-9. PubMed ID: 24593117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.