If I am to be tried by a jury of my peers, I would expect my peers to arrive with some relevant life experience that might inform their decision. I don’t think we should declare a mistrial just because a knowledgeable citizen happened to make it on to the jury.
We don’t allow citizen expertise. Next thing you know you will be deciding someone is not guilty because you believe the government acted unconstitutionally. Then where will we be? We did not give citizens the power to constrain the government. Oopps, wait, that didn’t come out right.
What you say is true (his own experience can influence his vote) but that's not the relevant point. What is relevant is that he did not disclose his personal experience in selection, and then he attempted to persuade other jurors based on it.
If any juror was not honest during jury selection and the information, if known, would have raised a challenge by counsel, why wouldn’t it be a mistrial?
I am with you on this. Back in my teen years, there was a lot of abuse that went on but you didn’t talk about it. Families kept things hush-hush and you didn’t go tell anyone outside the family! I know, I lived it. BUT that does not mean later on in life you can’t be objective about the evidence presented. AND if there was a questionnaire that asked if you ever experienced sexual abuse, a person may not know how to answer it. Maybe.