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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31983986)

  • 21. The Effect of Delayed Reporting on Mock-Juror Decision-Making in the Era of #MeToo.
    Fraser BM; Pica E; Pozzulo JD
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Jul; 37(13-14):NP11791-NP11810. PubMed ID: 33636996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Abuse Is Abuse: The Influence of Type of Abuse, Victim Age, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making.
    Sheahan CL; Pica E; Pozzulo JD
    J Interpers Violence; 2021 Jan; 36(1-2):938-956. PubMed ID: 29294918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors' Perceptions of Recanted Confessions.
    Ewanation L; Maeder EM
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():699077. PubMed ID: 34539496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: the effects of defendant's age on trial outcomes.
    Warling D; Peterson-Badali M
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(1):63-82. PubMed ID: 12579618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments.
    Devenport JL; Cutler BL
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Oct; 28(5):569-76. PubMed ID: 15638210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration.
    Modjadidi K; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Jun; 42(3):244-257. PubMed ID: 29809027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The Effects of Victim Gender Identity, Juror Gender, and Judicial Instructions on Victim Blaming, Crime Severity Ratings, and Verdicts in Sexual Assault Trials.
    Carter LM; Goodmon LB; Urs M; Rutledge-Jukes H
    J Homosex; 2023 May; 70(6):1187-1224. PubMed ID: 35171085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?
    Henderson KS; Levett LM
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):638-649. PubMed ID: 27243361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Face-to-face confrontation: effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Tobey AE; Batterman-Faunce JM; Orcutt H; Thomas S; Shapiro C; Sachsenmaier T
    Law Hum Behav; 1998 Apr; 22(2):165-203. PubMed ID: 9566121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. On informing jurors of potential sanctions.
    Teitcher J; Scurich N
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Dec; 41(6):579-587. PubMed ID: 28816465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Differential effects of direct and cross examination on mock jurors' perceptions and memory in cases of child sexual abuse.
    Olaguez AP; Klemfuss JZ
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(5):778-796. PubMed ID: 33859514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Saving damsels, sentencing deviants and selective chivalry decisions: juror decision-making in an ambiguous assault case.
    Meaux LT; Cox J; Kopkin MR
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(5):724-736. PubMed ID: 31984048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making.
    Anderson L; Gross J; Sonne T; Zajac R; Hayne H
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):200-17. PubMed ID: 26879737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Can the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony be improved?
    Wise RA; Kehn A
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(2):315-330. PubMed ID: 32944129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.