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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34351205)

  • 1. Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony.
    Perillo JT; Perillo AD; Despodova NM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):229-242. PubMed ID: 34351205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mental state at time of offense in the hot tub: An empirical examination of concurrent expert testimony in an insanity case.
    Krauss DA; Gongola J; Scurich N; Busch B
    Behav Sci Law; 2018 May; 36(3):358-372. PubMed ID: 29691882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand.
    McAuliff BD; Arter JL
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):524-35. PubMed ID: 27243362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
    Cooper J; Hall J
    Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Are Forensic Experts Already Biased before Adversarial Legal Parties Hire Them?
    Neal TM
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(4):e0154434. PubMed ID: 27124416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?
    Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Guarnera LA; Rufino KA
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Oct; 24(10):1889-97. PubMed ID: 23969777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Expert testimony influences juror decisions in criminal trials involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
    Khurshid A; Jacquin KM
    J Child Sex Abus; 2013; 22(8):949-67. PubMed ID: 24283545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Combining experts' judgments: comparison of algorithmic methods using synthetic data.
    Hammitt JK; Zhang Y
    Risk Anal; 2013 Jan; 33(1):109-20. PubMed ID: 22583060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: a survey of the courts and bar.
    Redding RE; Floyd MY; Hawk GL
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(4):583-94. PubMed ID: 11568962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of concordance between conclusions of forensic psychiatric evaluation and court decisions after 2005 Criminal Code Amendment in a Taiwan psychiatric hospital.
    Yang TW; Yu JM; Pan CH
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2017; 54():148-154. PubMed ID: 28743408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.
    Golding JM; Wasarhaley NE; Lynch KR; Lippert A; Magyarics CL
    Behav Sci Law; 2015 Aug; 33(4):493-507. PubMed ID: 26294384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Promoting ethical and objective practice in the medicolegal arena of disability evaluation.
    Martelli MF; Zasler ND; Johnson-Greene D
    Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am; 2001 Aug; 12(3):571-85. PubMed ID: 11478189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Conclaves and concurrent expert evidence: a positive development in Australian legal practice?
    Madden B; Cockburn T
    Med J Aust; 2016 Feb; 204(2):82-3. PubMed ID: 26821112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Defendants pleading insanity: an analysis of outcome.
    Janofsky JS; Vandewalle MB; Rappeport JR
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1989; 17(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 2758121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The psychiatric expert in court.
    Kenny A
    Psychol Med; 1984 May; 14(2):291-302. PubMed ID: 6739627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The factors associated with forensic psychiatrists' decisions in criminal responsibility and social dangerousness evaluations.
    Mandarelli G; Carabellese F; Felthous AR; Parmigiani G; Del Casale A; Catanesi R; Montalbò D; Ferracuti S
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 66():101503. PubMed ID: 31706410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preventative detention decisions: reliance on expert assessments and evidence of partisan allegiance within the Canadian context.
    Blais J
    Behav Sci Law; 2015 Feb; 33(1):74-91. PubMed ID: 25693952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.