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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32381238)

  • 1. Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices.
    Bali AS; Edmond G; Ballantyne KN; Kemp RI; Martire KA
    Sci Justice; 2020 May; 60(3):216-224. PubMed ID: 32381238
    [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. Peer review in forensic science.
    Ballantyne KN; Edmond G; Found B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Aug; 277():66-76. PubMed ID: 28622536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Forensic scientists' conclusions: how readable are they for non-scientist report-users?
    Howes LM; Kirkbride KP; Kelty SF; Julian R; Kemp N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2013 Sep; 231(1-3):102-12. PubMed ID: 23890623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports.
    Summersby S; Edmond G; Kemp RI; Ballantyne KN; Martire KA
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jun; 359():112034. PubMed ID: 38704924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of DNA analysis.
    Howes LM; Julian R; Kelty SF; Kemp N; Kirkbride KP
    Forensic Sci Int; 2014 Apr; 237():7-18. PubMed ID: 24530439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners.
    Edmond G; Towler A; Growns B; Ribeiro G; Found B; White D; Ballantyne K; Searston RA; Thompson MB; Tangen JM; Kemp RI; Martire K
    Sci Justice; 2017 Mar; 57(2):144-154. PubMed ID: 28284440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dismantling the Justice Silos: avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law.
    Kelty SF; Julian R; Ross A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2013 Jul; 230(1-3):8-15. PubMed ID: 23159340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility.
    Wechsler HJ; Kehn A; Wise RA; Cramer RJ
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 41():58-66. PubMed ID: 25869850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A transparent approach: Openness in forensic science reporting.
    Ballantyne KN; Summersby S; Pearson JR; Nicol K; Pirie E; Quinn C; Kogios R
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2024; 8():100474. PubMed ID: 38737993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Demonstrating reliability through transparency: A scientific validity framework to assist scientists and lawyers in criminal proceedings.
    Carr S; Piasecki E; Gallop A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Mar; 308():110110. PubMed ID: 31959481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Conceptualising, evaluating and communicating uncertainty in forensic science: Identifying commonly used tools through an interdisciplinary configurative review.
    Georgiou N; Morgan RM; French JC
    Sci Justice; 2020 Jul; 60(4):313-336. PubMed ID: 32650934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Latent justice? A review of adversarial challenges to fingerprint evidence.
    Edmond G
    Sci Justice; 2022 Jan; 62(1):21-29. PubMed ID: 35033325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors' Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence.
    Thompson WC; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1379-1388. PubMed ID: 30791101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The forensic expert witness--an issue of competency.
    Hiss J; Freund M; Kahana T
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 May; 168(2-3):89-94. PubMed ID: 16842948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Forensic science: A judicial perspective.
    Rakoff JS; Liu G
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Oct; 120(41):e2301838120. PubMed ID: 37782784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
    McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.