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.
212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3281252)
1. Evolving legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Black B Science; 1988 Mar; 239(4847):1508-12. PubMed ID: 3281252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Lessons from Canadian Courts for All Expert Witnesses. Booth BD; Watts J; Dufour M J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2019 Aug; 47(3):278-285. PubMed ID: 31097525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Causes célèbres. The Thomas Lund Lecture, delivered to the British Academy of Forensic Sciences on Tuesday 22 October 1991. Usher A Med Sci Law; 1992 Apr; 32(2):97-108. PubMed ID: 1614306 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Risk assessment in the law: legal admissibility, scientific validity, and some disparities between research and practice. Krauss DA; Scurich N Behav Sci Law; 2013; 31(2):215-29. PubMed ID: 23613165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping "Junk Science" Out of the Courtroom? Neal TMS; Slobogin C; Saks MJ; Faigman DL; Geisinger KF Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2019 Dec; 20(3):135-164. PubMed ID: 32065036 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends. Shapiro DL; Mixon L; Jackson M; Shook J Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():149-53. PubMed ID: 26341310 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Psychiatric evidence in criminal courts: the need for better understanding. Muzaffar S Med Sci Law; 2011 Jul; 51(3):141-5. PubMed ID: 21905568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony: disorder in the courts. Kassirer JP; Cecil JS JAMA; 2002 Sep; 288(11):1382-7. PubMed ID: 12234232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Assessment of children's reliability in connection with sexual abuse. A complex interplay between the judicial system and expert witnesses]. Gumpert CH Lakartidningen; 2002 Jun; 99(24):2734-8. PubMed ID: 12101598 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge. Klee CH; Friedman HJ NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The National Board of Forensic Medicine will be responsible for legal certification]. Rosén S; Eriksson A; Krantz P; Rammer L Lakartidningen; 2005 Jul 11-24; 102(28-29):2084. PubMed ID: 16097180 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Requiem for the "general acceptance" standard in forensic science. Moenssens AA Leg Med; 1982; ():275-87. PubMed ID: 7121185 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]