Works matching DE "LEGAL status of witnesses"
1
- Communications Law: Journal of Computer, Media & Telecommunications Law, 2014, v. 19, n. 4, p. 130
- Article
2
- Michigan Law Review, 2021, v. 119, n. 5, p. 1031, doi. 10.36644/mlr.119.5.liars
- Article
3
- Michigan Law Review, 2016, v. 114, n. 7, p. 1317
- Article
4
- Indiana Law Journal, 2016, v. 91, n. 3, p. 823
- Article
5
- German Life & Letters, 2015, v. 68, n. 1, p. 88, doi. 10.1111/glal.12070
- Article
6
- Jurist: Studies in Church Order & Ministry, 2010, v. 70, n. 1, p. 163
- Article
7
- South Dakota Law Review, 2017, v. 62, n. 2, p. 484
- Article
8
- Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 2015, v. 22, n. 3, p. 453, doi. 10.1080/13218719.2014.960032
- Hepner, Ilana;
- Woodward, Mary N.;
- Stewart, Jeanette
- Article
9
- Indigenous World, 2014, p. 276
- Article
10
- California Law Review, 1990, v. 78, n. 5, p. 1313, doi. 10.2307/3480749
- Article
11
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1953, v. 9, n. 6, p. 229
- Article
12
- SA Crime Quarterly, 2005, n. 13, p. 23
- Article
13
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 2020, v. 22, n. 3, p. 547
- Article
14
- Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2012, v. 50, n. 1, p. 1, doi. 10.60082/2817-5069.1031
- BENEDET, JANINE;
- GRANT, ISABEL
- Article
15
- Houston Law Review, 2021, v. 58, n. 4, p. 937
- Article
16
- Disability Studies Quarterly, 2018, v. 38, n. 1, p. 1, doi. 10.18061/dsq.v38i1.5587
- O'Leary, Catherine;
- Feely, Dr. Michael
- Article
17
- Creighton Law Review, 2015, v. 49, n. 1, p. 121
- ROTHSTEIN, PAUL F.;
- Imwinkelried, Edward J.;
- Rothstein, Paul F.
- Article
18
- Creighton Law Review, 2009, v. 42, n. 4, p. 595
- Article
19
- Sixteenth Century Journal, 2014, v. 45, n. 1, p. 51, doi. 10.1086/scj24247472
- Christensen-Nugues, Charlotte
- Article
20
- Urban Lawyer, 2015, v. 47, n. 2, p. 380
- Article
22
- Dispute Resolution Journal, 2014, v. 69, n. 4, p. 39
- Article
23
- Dispute Resolution Journal, 2007, v. 62, n. 4, p. 14
- Article
24
- University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2016, v. 27, n. 3, p. 443
- Article
25
- Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2021, v. 21, n. 1, p. 162, doi. 10.1080/14729342.2021.1901400
- Article
26
- Vanderbilt Law Review, 2014, v. 67, n. 5, p. 1497
- Article
27
- UMKC Law Review, 2020, v. 88, n. 3, p. 771
- Article
28
- Villanova Law Review, 2015, v. 60, n. 2, p. 343
- Article
29
- Villanova Law Review, 2008, v. 53, n. 3, p. 561
- Article
30
- California Law Review, 1957, v. 45, n. 2, p. 109, doi. 10.2307/3478836
- Article
31
- Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1994, v. 8, n. 4, p. 407, doi. 10.1002/acp.2350080410
- Read, J. Don;
- Lindsay, d. Stephen
- Article
32
- JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002, v. 288, n. 11, p. 1382, doi. 10.1001/jama.288.11.1382
- Kassirer, Jerome P.;
- Cecil, Joe S.
- Article
33
- Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2014, v. 26, n. 2, p. 185
- Article
34
- Pace Law Review, 2018, v. 38, n. 2, p. 437, doi. 10.58948/2331-3528.1968
- Article
35
- Ottawa Law Review, 2014, v. 45, n. 3, p. 403
- Article
37
- Lincoln Law Review, 2008, v. 36, p. 45
- Donaldson, Tim;
- Olson, Karen
- Article
38
- Yale Law Journal, 2021, v. 130, n. 5, p. 1146
- Article
39
- Temple Law Review, 2013, v. 86, n. 1, p. 149
- Article
40
- DePaul Law Review, 2015, v. 64, n. 2, p. 449
- Article
41
- Dalhousie Law Journal, 2017, v. 40, n. 1, p. 239
- Article
42
- Cumberland Law Review, 2013, v. 43, n. 2, p. 361
- Article
44
- Edinburgh Law Review, 2014, v. 18, n. 2, p. 279, doi. 10.3366/elr.2014.0213
- Article
45
- Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2013, v. 44, n. 2, p. 537
- Article
46
- Maryland Law Review, 2010, v. 69, n. 2, p. 390
- Article
47
- Columbia Law Review, 2014, v. 114, n. 4, p. 997
- Article
48
- Utah Bar Journal, 2015, v. 28, n. 6, p. 40
- Article
49
- Western New England Law Review, 2015, v. 37, n. 3, p. 301
- Article
50
- St. Mary's Law Journal, 2015, v. 46, n. 2, p. 137
- Article