Selling Influence: Using Advertising to Prejudice the Jury Pool

I. Introduction . . . . . 686 II. Advertising’s Effects on Jurors . . . . . 692 A. How Advertising May Influence Jurors . . . . . 692 1. Association . . . . . 694 2. Networks of Associations . . . . . 695 3. Framing and Schemas . . . . . 696 4. The Cueing Process . . . . . 697 5. Priming and Closure . . . . . 697 6. Elaboration . . . . . 698 7. Emotion and Memory . . . . . 699 8. The Relevance Factor . . . . . 700 B. Assessing the Impact of Peripherally Processed Advertisements . . . . . 701 C. Advertising’s Dependence on Context . . . . . 702 III. Defining Juror Bias . . . . . 703 A. Fair Juror Standards in Criminal Trials . . . . . 703 B. Fair Juror Standards in Civil Trials . . . . . 711 C. Social Scientists’ Analysis of Jury Bias . . . . . 713 IV. Possible Remedies for Advertising-Induced Juror Bias . . . . . 716 A. Using the Commercial Speech Doctrine to Suppress Pretrial Advertising Campaigns . . . . . 717 B. Using Procedural Remedies to Eliminate Juror Bias . . . . . 721 C. Gagging Lawyers to Prevent Pretrial Advertising Campaigns . . . . . 724 V . Conclusion . . . . . 729