Abstract
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
Recommended Citation
Robert Trager, Sandra Moriarty, and Tom Duncan,
Selling Influence: Using Advertising to Prejudice the Jury Pool,
83 Neb. L. Rev.
(2004)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol83/iss3/3