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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37603005)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.
    Parrott CT; Brodsky SL; Wilson JK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():67-74. PubMed ID: 26346686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.
    Shaw EV; Lynch M; Laguna S; Frenda SJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):215-228. PubMed ID: 34351204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom.
    Kipoulas E; Edwards I; Radakovic R; Beazley PI
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2024; 96():102016. PubMed ID: 39213688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence.
    Wheatcroft JM; Keogan H
    J Psychol; 2017 Apr; 151(3):247-267. PubMed ID: 27982750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of confession evidence on jurors' verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Mindthoff A; Ferreira PA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Jun; 48(3):163-181. PubMed ID: 38949764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?
    Henderson KS; Levett LM
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):638-649. PubMed ID: 27243361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator.
    Miller QC; Call AA; London K
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Dec; 37(23-24):NP23374-NP23396. PubMed ID: 35285346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Differences in expert witness knowledge: do mock jurors notice and does it matter?
    Parrott CT; Neal TM; Wilson JK; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2015 Mar; 43(1):69-81. PubMed ID: 25770282
    [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]
    of 7.