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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31984031)

  • 21. Expert testimony influences juror decisions in criminal trials involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
    Khurshid A; Jacquin KM
    J Child Sex Abus; 2013; 22(8):949-67. PubMed ID: 24283545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effect of confession evidence on jurors' verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Mindthoff A; Ferreira PA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Jun; 48(3):163-181. PubMed ID: 38949764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation.
    LaBat DE; Goldfarb D; Evans JR; Compo NS; Koolmees CJ; LaPorte G; Lothridge K
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Oct; 47(5):566-578. PubMed ID: 37603005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Credibility in the courtroom: how likeable should an expert witness be?
    Brodsky SL; Neal TM; Cramer RJ; Ziemke MH
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 20019000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect.
    Abshire J; Bornstein BH
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Oct; 27(5):471-80. PubMed ID: 14593793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Victim Impact Statements: How Victim Social Class Affects Juror Decision Making.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Violence Vict; 2017 Jun; 32(3):521-532. PubMed ID: 28516855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.
    Maeder EM; Pica E
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Dec; 38(6):560-8. PubMed ID: 25180762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments.
    Brewer N; Burke A
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):353-64. PubMed ID: 12061623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
    Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Commentary: Perception of remorse by mock jurors in a capital murder trial.
    Batista LM; Myers W
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 22396342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.