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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32790911)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession.
    Woestehoff SA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):564-79. PubMed ID: 27227274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners.
    Dror IE; Scherr KC; Mohammed LA; MacLean CL; Cunningham L
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jan; 318():110610. PubMed ID: 33358191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.
    Pena MM; Stoiloff S; Sparacino M; Schreiber Compo N
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 Sep; 69(5):1740-1757. PubMed ID: 38922874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contextual bias on decision-making in forensic toxicology: First survey from China.
    He N; Wang L; Hao H
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Apr; 333():111232. PubMed ID: 35176676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.
    McQuiston-Surrett D; Saks MJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):436-53. PubMed ID: 19259800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?
    Gardner BO; Kelley S; Murrie DC; Dror IE
    Sci Justice; 2019 Sep; 59(5):516-523. PubMed ID: 31472796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Lages M; MacLean R; Murray J
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Mar; 65(2):354-360. PubMed ID: 31693180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence.
    Woody WD; Forrest KD
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):333-60. PubMed ID: 19405020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the 'common sense' hypothesis.
    Grove LJ; Kukucka J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2021; 28(2):185-205. PubMed ID: 34712091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.