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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33592556)

  • 1. Judges and forensic science education: A national survey.
    Garrett BL; Gardner BO; Murphy E; Grimes P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Apr; 321():110714. PubMed ID: 33592556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.
    Gatowski SI; Dobbin SA; Richardson JT; Ginsburg GP; Merlino ML; Dahir V
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Oct; 25(5):433-58. PubMed ID: 11688367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards.
    Wingate PH; Thornton GC
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Feb; 28(1):97-114. PubMed ID: 15055343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Independent judicial research in the Daubert age.
    Cheng EK
    Duke Law J; 2007 Mar; 56(5):1263-318. PubMed ID: 17593589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis.
    Pretty IA
    Forensic Sci Int; 2006 May; 159 Suppl 1():S110-20. PubMed ID: 16540273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.
    Cecil JS
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S74-80. PubMed ID: 16030342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Representation and re-presentation in litigation science.
    Jasanoff S
    Environ Health Perspect; 2008 Jan; 116(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 18197311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology.
    Grivas CR; Komar DA
    J Forensic Sci; 2008 Jul; 53(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 18489550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
    Kaufman HH
    Sci Justice; 2001; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts' evaluation of expertise.
    Taipale J
    Public Underst Sci; 2019 Nov; 28(8):883-896. PubMed ID: 31694499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Immigration Judges' Perceptionsof Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations.
    Green AS; Ruchman SG; Birhanu B; Wu S; Katz CL; Singer EK; Baranowski KA
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2022 Jun; 50(2):240-251. PubMed ID: 35444056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.
    Haack S
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S66-73. PubMed ID: 16030341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The war against junk science: the use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation.
    Price JM; Rosenberg ES
    Biomaterials; 1998 Aug; 19(16):1425-32. PubMed ID: 9794513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jul; 56(4):913-7. PubMed ID: 21729081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.