No, this jury was chosen that way. Pretty much all juries are chose that way. The first step, "qualification" of the jurors, sometimes happens out of sight - they are often "qualified" before they are ever put into the venire for questioning.
It is simply that you are insistent on claiming that this guy's presence on the jury was someone's fault other than the defense, but you have no basis for saying so. A good judge doesn't try the case for the parties. He is the "referee." There is no basis for claiming that any effort was made to keep this guy off the jury. If there was, it would present a ground for appeal. But even the Slate article provides some basis for thinking the defense liked the guy. So did the blogging on jury selection.
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and think this was all a grand conspiracy. But one has to wonder why anyone would go to all the trouble to plant juror and install a corrupt prosecutor and all that over Libby. If you are going to gin up something that big and impossible, why not go after a big fish?
He should not have been qualified. Period. He simply should not have been in the pool.
It's not a conspiracy and I think the Libby team figured that they'd just take one moonbat and hope for a hung jury.
But they WERE planning on going after a big fish. However, the defense snatched it away from them.