BermantGChappellDCrockettG TJacoubovitchM DMcGuireMJuror responses to pre-recorded videotape trial presentations in California and Ohio. Hastings Law Journal1975, 26, 975–998.
2.
BottomleyA KThe sentencing process. In: Decisions in the penal process. London: Martin Robertson & Co1973.
3.
Brigham Young University Law Review. Symposium: the use of videotape in the courtroom. 1975, 2, Entire issue.
4.
ChapanisAInteractive human communication. Sci. Amer.1975, 232, 36–42.
5.
CoyleI RFrancisR DSentencing: applications of videotape in analysis and training. J. Behavioural Science. In press forJune 1976.
6.
FoxRO'BrienB MFact-finding for sentencers. Melb. Univ. Law Rev, 1975, 10, 163–206.
7.
H.M.S.O. Home Office. The sentence of the court. H.M.S.O., London1969.
8.
HogarthJSentencing as a human process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press1971.
9.
HoodRSentencing in magistrates courts. London: Stevens & Sons1962.
10.
JacksonR MThe Machinery of Justice in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press1960.
11.
MartinW LThe collective sentencing decision in judicial and administrative contexts: a comparative analysis of two approaches to correctional disparity. Amer. Crim. Law Rev.1972–3, 11, 695–720.
12.
ThomasD APrinciples of Sentencing. London: Heinemann1970.
13.
WalkerNSentencing in a Rational Society. New York: Basic Books1971.
14.
WoodsG DCriminology and sentencing in the N.S.W. Court of Criminal Appeal. Aust. NZJC. 1973, 6, 141–146.
