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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9374603)

  • 1. The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial?
    Douglas KS; Lyon DR; Ogloff JR
    Law Hum Behav; 1997 Oct; 21(5):485-501. PubMed ID: 9374603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. White mock jurors' moral emotional responses to viewing female victim photographs depend on the victim's race.
    Phalen HJ; Salerno JM; Adamoli M; Nadler J
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Dec; 47(6):666-685. PubMed ID: 38127550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Gender, Generations, and Guilt: Defendant Gender and Age Affect Jurors' Decisions and Perceptions in an Intimate Partner Homicide Trial.
    Ruva CL; Smith KD; Sykes EC
    J Interpers Violence; 2023 Dec; 38(23-24):12089-12112. PubMed ID: 37602736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Talking about a black man: the influence of defendant and character witness race on jurors' use of character evidence.
    Maeder EM; Hunt JS
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):608-20. PubMed ID: 21796674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The influence of race on jurors' perceptions of lethal police use of force.
    Ewanation L; Maeder EM
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):53-67. PubMed ID: 36931849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An analysis of the effects of subjective and objective instruction forms on mock-juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions.
    Spackman MP; Belcher JC; Calapp JW; Taylor A
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Dec; 26(6):605-23. PubMed ID: 12508697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Commentary: Perception of remorse by mock jurors in a capital murder trial.
    Batista LM; Myers W
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 22396342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence.
    London K; Nunez N
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):932-9. PubMed ID: 11125657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Rethinking the probative value of evidence: base rates, intuitive profiling, and the "postdiction" of behavior.
    Davis D; Follette WC
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Apr; 26(2):133-58. PubMed ID: 11985295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Prejudice and terror management at trial: Effects of defendant race/ethnicity and mortality salience on mock-jurors' verdict judgments.
    Leippe MR; Bergold AN; Eisenstadt D
    J Soc Psychol; 2017; 157(3):279-294. PubMed ID: 27136391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.