278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33090867)
1. 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]
2. The impact of developmental language disorder in a defendant's description on mock jurors' perceptions and judgements.
Hobson HM; Woodley J; Gamblen S; Brackely J; O'Neill F; Miles D; Westwood C
Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2023 Jan; 58(1):189-205. PubMed ID: 36087284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Gender, Generations, and Guilt: Defendant Gender and Age Affect Jurors' Decisions and Perceptions in an Intimate Partner Homicide Trial.
Ruva CL; Smith KD; Sykes EC
J Interpers Violence; 2023 Dec; 38(23-24):12089-12112. PubMed ID: 37602736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.
Stevenson MC; McCracken E; Watson A; Petty T; Plogher T
Law Hum Behav; 2023 Apr; 47(2):348-366. PubMed ID: 37053386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Mock juror perception of sexual assault nurse examiner testimony.
Wasarhaley NE; Simcic TA; Golding JM
Violence Vict; 2012; 27(4):500-11. PubMed ID: 22978071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.
Ruva CL; Guenther CC
Law Hum Behav; 2015 Jun; 39(3):294-310. PubMed ID: 25495716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: a path analytic approach.
Poulson RL; Brondino MJ; Brown H; Braithwaite RL
Psychol Rep; 1998 Feb; 82(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9520530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends.
Pate M; Kienzle M; Vogler V
Behav Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 37(1):78-89. PubMed ID: 30266044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Crime Scene Familiarity: Does it Influence Mock Jurors' Decisions?
Pica E; Pozzulo J
Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(5):745-759. PubMed ID: 31983986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence.
Chorn JA; Kovera MB
Law Hum Behav; 2019 Dec; 43(6):542-557. PubMed ID: 31524421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review.
Slane CR; Dodson CS
Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
