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 *

430 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8302986)

  • 1. Effects of pretrial publicity on male and female jurors and judges in a mock rape trial.
    Riedel RG
    Psychol Rep; 1993 Dec; 73(3 Pt 1):819-32. PubMed ID: 8302986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. General pretrial publicity in sexual assault trials.
    Woody WD; Viney W
    Psychol Rep; 2007 Oct; 101(2):527-30. PubMed ID: 18175495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.
    Hope L; Memon A; McGeorge P
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Jun; 10(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15222805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making.
    Ruva CL; McEvoy C
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Sep; 14(3):226-35. PubMed ID: 18808276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis.
    Hoetger LA; Devine DJ; Brank EM; Drew RM; Rees R
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):121-139. PubMed ID: 35084906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial.
    Lynch KR; Wasarhaley NE; Golding JM; Simcic T
    J Interpers Violence; 2013 Nov; 28(16):3205-22. PubMed ID: 23929601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A third verdict option: exploring the impact of the not proven verdict on mock juror decision making.
    Hope L; Greene E; Memon A; Gavisk M; Houston K
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):241-52. PubMed ID: 17703354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a simulated acquaintance rape trial.
    Fischer GJ
    Psychol Rep; 1991 Jun; 68(3 Pt 2):1199-206. PubMed ID: 1924619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors.
    Curley LJ; MacLean R; Murray J; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 59(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 30501474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: an examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms.
    Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Feb; 26(1):43-72. PubMed ID: 11868620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Legal Perceptions of Lesbian Intimate Partner Violence.
    Wasarhaley NE; Lynch KR; Golding JM; Renzetti CM
    J Interpers Violence; 2017 Mar; 32(5):635-658. PubMed ID: 25990382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The relationship between verdict, defendant characteristics, and type of crime in sex-related criminal cases.
    Beck JC; Borenstein N; Dreyfus J
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1986; 14(2):141-6. PubMed ID: 3730627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.