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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32320075)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill.
    Terrance CA; Matheson K; Spanos NP
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):207-29. PubMed ID: 10810839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing.
    ForsterLee L; Horowitz I; Athaide-Victor E; Brown N
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):259-70. PubMed ID: 10810841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Mock jurors' use of error rates in DNA database trawls.
    Scurich N; John RS
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Dec; 37(6):424-31. PubMed ID: 23855323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature-comparison methods: DNA, voice, and fingerprint analysis.
    Villavicencio-Queijeiro A; Loyzance C; García-Castillo Z; Suzuri-Hernández J; Castillo-Alanís A; López-Olvera P; López-Escobedo F
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 Jan; 67(1):217-228. PubMed ID: 34596244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability.
    Martire KA; Ballantyne KN; Bali A; Edmond G; Kemp RI; Found B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Sep; 302():109877. PubMed ID: 31415947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*
    Kukucka J; Hiley A; Kassin SM
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1978-1990. PubMed ID: 32790911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence.
    Garrett B; Mitchell G; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 Nov; 63(6):1712-1717. PubMed ID: 29684944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Does DNA evidence in the form of a likelihood ratio affect perceivers' sensitivity to the strength of a suspect's alibi?
    Ribeiro G; Tangen J; McKimmie B
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2020 Dec; 27(6):1325-1332. PubMed ID: 32748228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury.
    Holmgren JA; Fordham J
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jan; 56 Suppl 1():S63-71. PubMed ID: 21155799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence.
    Wheatcroft JM; Keogan H
    J Psychol; 2017 Apr; 151(3):247-267. PubMed ID: 27982750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome: its impact on jurors' decisions.
    Schuller RA; Rzepa S
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Dec; 26(6):655-73. PubMed ID: 12508700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses.
    Montgomery JH; Ciccone JR; Garvey SP; Eisenberg T
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(4):509-18. PubMed ID: 16394228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.
    Hope L; Memon A; McGeorge P
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Jun; 10(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15222805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.