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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36226574)

  • 41. The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence.
    Greenspan R; Scurich N
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):650-659. PubMed ID: 27149289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The emotional child witness: effects on juror decision-making.
    Cooper A; Quas JA; Cleveland KC
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(6):813-28. PubMed ID: 25537438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors.
    Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Research-Based Instructions Induce Sensitivity to Confession Evidence.
    Jones AM; Penrod S
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(2):257-272. PubMed ID: 31984019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Jurors use mental state information to assess breach in negligence cases.
    Margoni F; Brown TR
    Cognition; 2023 Jul; 236():105442. PubMed ID: 36996604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Perceptions of waived juvenile defendants across mental health diagnoses and demographic characteristics.
    Taylor M; Kaplan T; Mulvey P; Miller MK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 66():101474. PubMed ID: 31706382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Are consistent juror decisions related to fast and frugal decision making? Investigating the relationship between juror consistency, decision speed and cue utilisation.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P
    Med Sci Law; 2017 Oct; 57(4):211-219. PubMed ID: 28992745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Defendant mental illness and juror decision-making: A comparison of sample types.
    Mossière A; Maeder EM
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():58-66. PubMed ID: 26314888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. The Defendant with the Prison Tattoo: The Effect of Tattoos on Mock Jurors' Perceptions.
    Brown KA; McKimmie BM; Zarkadi T
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(3):386-403. PubMed ID: 31984027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. "Trans Folks are in the Crosshairs": Jury Decision-Making and the Trans Panic Defense.
    Michalski ND; Bitter AN; Nuñez N
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Dec; 37(23-24):NP22453-NP22474. PubMed ID: 35167408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect.
    Abshire J; Bornstein BH
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Oct; 27(5):471-80. PubMed ID: 14593793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. The Mnemonic Consequences of Jurors' Selective Retrieval During Deliberation.
    Jay ACV; Stone CB; Meksin R; Merck C; Gordon NS; Hirst W
    Top Cogn Sci; 2019 Oct; 11(4):627-643. PubMed ID: 31231981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. The Failure of All Mothers or the Mother of All Failures? Juror Perceptions of Failure to Protect Laws.
    Stanziani M; Cox J
    J Interpers Violence; 2021 Jan; 36(1-2):NP690-NP711. PubMed ID: 29294952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.