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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38127550)

  • 21. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
    Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
    J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mock-Jurors' Judgements in a Sexual Assault Case: The Influence of Defendant Race and Occupational Status, Delayed Reporting, and Multiple Allegations.
    Fraser BM; Pica E; Pozzulo JD
    J Interpers Violence; 2023 Jul; 38(13-14):7964-7989. PubMed ID: 36762531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Victim Impact Statements: How Victim Social Class Affects Juror Decision Making.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Violence Vict; 2017 Jun; 32(3):521-532. PubMed ID: 28516855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.
    Bright DA; Goodman-Delahunty J
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):183-202. PubMed ID: 16786406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The Effects of Victim Gender Identity, Juror Gender, and Judicial Instructions on Victim Blaming, Crime Severity Ratings, and Verdicts in Sexual Assault Trials.
    Carter LM; Goodmon LB; Urs M; Rutledge-Jukes H
    J Homosex; 2023 May; 70(6):1187-1224. PubMed ID: 35171085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The impact of frequency of behavior and type of contact on judgments involving a criminal stalking case.
    Magyarics CL; Lynch KR; Golding JM; Lippert A
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Dec; 39(6):602-13. PubMed ID: 26237334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Juror Decision-Making in a Child Trafficking Case: The Impact of Defendant and Victim Gender, Defendant Age, and Defendant Status.
    Pica E; Hildenbrand A; Fraser L; Pozzulo J
    J Interpers Violence; 2023 Sep; 38(17-18):10031-10054. PubMed ID: 37096978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. What makes recovered-memory testimony compelling to jurors?
    Coleman BL; Stevens MJ; Reeder GD
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Aug; 25(4):317-38. PubMed ID: 11501437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Racial bias in jury selection hurts mock jurors, not just defendants: Testing one potential intervention.
    Abramowitz K; Douglass AB
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):153-168. PubMed ID: 36931855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. The role of social desirability and establishing nonracist credentials on mock juror decisions about Black defendants.
    Salerno JM; Kulak K; Smalarz L; Eerdmans RE; Lawrence ML; Dao T
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):100-118. PubMed ID: 36931852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review.
    Slane CR; Dodson CS
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Perceptions of domestic violence and mock jurors' sentencing decisions.
    Kern R; Libkuman TM; Temple SL
    J Interpers Violence; 2007 Dec; 22(12):1515-35. PubMed ID: 17993639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Jurors' reactions to satanic ritual abuse allegations.
    Bottoms BL; Diviak KR; Davis SL
    Child Abuse Negl; 1997 Sep; 21(9):845-59. PubMed ID: 9298262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0212491. PubMed ID: 30779768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of defendant sexual orientation on jurors' perceptions of child sexual assault.
    Wiley TR; Bottoms BL
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):46-60. PubMed ID: 18404363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

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