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: 32411951)

  • 1. Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis.
    Eldridge H
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2019; 1():24-34. PubMed ID: 32411951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Psychological aspects of courtroom testimony.
    Loftus EF
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1980; 347():27-37. PubMed ID: 6930909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents.
    Thompson WC; Newman EJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Aug; 39(4):332-49. PubMed ID: 25984887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.
    Zlotnick J; Lin JR
    Forensic Sci Rev; 2001 Jul; 13(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 26256304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?
    Buck JA; London K; Wright DB
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):152-64. PubMed ID: 20443056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse.
    Morison S; Greene E
    Child Abuse Negl; 1992; 16(4):595-613. PubMed ID: 1393722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perception problems of the verbal scale.
    Mullen C; Spence D; Moxey L; Jamieson A
    Sci Justice; 2014 Mar; 54(2):154-8. PubMed ID: 24630326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of expert witness testimony and complainant cognitive statements on mock jurors' perceptions of rape trial testimony.
    Ryan N; Westera N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(5):693-705. PubMed ID: 31984046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence.
    Garrett BL; Crozier WE; Grady R
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Jul; 65(4):1199-1209. PubMed ID: 32320075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.
    Parrott CT; Brodsky SL; Wilson JK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():67-74. PubMed ID: 26346686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI; Watkins I; Sayle MA; Newell BR
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Jun; 37(3):197-207. PubMed ID: 23750600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.