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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35571599)

  • 1. Judges' experiences with mitigating jurors' implicit biases.
    Kirshenbaum JM; Miller MK
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2021; 28(5):683-693. PubMed ID: 35571599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Jurors' and Judges' Evaluation of Defendants with Autism and the Impact on Sentencing: A Systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Review of Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Courtroom.
    Allely CS; Cooper P
    J Law Med; 2017 Nov; 25(1):105-123. PubMed ID: 29978627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Elder sexual abuse and implicit agism: examining the warm-incompetent bias among mock jurors.
    Syme ML; Cohn TJ
    J Elder Abuse Negl; 2020; 32(1):1-26. PubMed ID: 31760911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Stacking the Jury: Legal Professionals' Peremptory Challenges Reflect Jurors' Levels of Implicit Race Bias.
    Morrison M; DeVaul-Fetters A; Gawronski B
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1129-41. PubMed ID: 27354112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.
    Crocker CB; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):212-26. PubMed ID: 19644740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Dror IE
    Med Sci Law; 2022 Jul; 62(3):206-215. PubMed ID: 35175157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors' application of instructions.
    Baguley CM; McKimmie BM; Masser BM
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Jun; 41(3):284-304. PubMed ID: 28182459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Mock jurors' awareness of age-related changes in memory and cognitive capacity.
    Martschuk N; Sporer SL
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(3):441-464. PubMed ID: 33071551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?
    Kovera MB; McAuliff BD
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Aug; 85(4):574-86. PubMed ID: 10948802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The role of the radiation safety specialist as witness: risk communication with attorneys, judges, and jurors.
    Johnson RH
    Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):661-9. PubMed ID: 11725884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.
    Carlson KA; Russo JE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Implementation and lessons learned from a mock trial as a teaching-learning and assessment activity.
    Rosenberg E; Truong HA; Hsu SY; Taheri R
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2018 Aug; 10(8):1076-1086. PubMed ID: 30314544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perspective Differences in Trial Process: A Comparison of Judges, Juries and Litigants.
    Jones AM; Jones SE; Duron A
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2019; 26(1):87-96. PubMed ID: 31984066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Building Biased Jurors: Exposing the Circularity of the Inherent Bias Rationale for Felon-Juror Exclusion.
    Binnall JM; Petersen N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(1):110-125. PubMed ID: 32284783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test.
    Jones AM; Bergold AN; Penrod S
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(3):366-385. PubMed ID: 33071546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.