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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31983971)

  • 1. The Effects of Limiting Instructions about Emotional Evidence Depend on Need for Cognition.
    Matsuo K; Itoh Y
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(4):516-529. PubMed ID: 31983971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Crime Scene Familiarity: Does it Influence Mock Jurors' Decisions?
    Pica E; Pozzulo J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(5):745-759. PubMed ID: 31983986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Juror characteristics on trial: Investigating how psychopathic traits, rape attitudes, victimization experiences, and juror demographics influence decision-making in an intimate partner rape trial.
    Lilley C; Willmott D; Mojtahedi D
    Front Psychiatry; 2022; 13():1086026. PubMed ID: 36727087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Factors that Influence Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Credibility.
    Call AA; Wingrove T
    J Child Sex Abus; 2022; 31(6):726-742. PubMed ID: 35833559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. Mock jurors' awareness of age-related changes in memory and cognitive capacity.
    Martschuk N; Sporer SL
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(3):441-464. PubMed ID: 33071551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The Impact of State and Trait Anger on Processing of Evidential Inconsistencies.
    Semmler C; Hurst J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(4):594-604. PubMed ID: 31983976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test.
    Jones AM; Bergold AN; Penrod S
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(3):366-385. PubMed ID: 33071546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(3):437-451. PubMed ID: 31984031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Individual versus group decision making: Jurors' reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony.
    Salerno JM; Bottoms BL; Peter-Hagene LC
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0183580. PubMed ID: 28931011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.