There were several others who immediately raised their hand and "begged off". But, there were also a lot of people just dying to be chosen. They we adamant about how fair they could be and how they had absolutely no prejudices at all.
I came away thinking that the courts should have a way for volunteer jurors to offer their time.
One problem with such volunteer jurors is that they are not what the judge and the lawyers want to see in the box. These people are probably retired, well off, competent, and are ready and able to be jurors ... that's exactly opposite to what the professionals in the courtroom want. The judge wants jurors that are easy; best if they know nothing at all because then they accept anything that lawyers say as truth. The recent trial(s) of Jammie Thomas are quite representative in this aspect because the jurors spoke after the trial and demonstrated, for all to see, their complete lack of clue.
Multiple juror experiences of such volunteers would also educate them beyond what is desirable. They'd become semi-professionals who are actually aware of their rights and not always willing to reject common sense.
In other words, jurors are like politicians - "if you want the job then you shouldn't get it." A juror has certain power over people; if chosen randomly and rarely, this can't be exploited. But if your neighbor is spending his time in courts day after day he becomes a somewhat important person, without being elected or hired by the parties.
I was on a month-long case in CA. One of the most horrible experiences I’ve had. There was more discussion in the Jury room about one of the attornies’ outfits and high heels, and the geekiness of the other attorney, than the facts of the case. The attornies’ attractiveness, or lack thereof, actually had a huge influence in the jury’s decision. Of course, half of the jurors were 12-year-old bank VPs. OK... maybe they were 22. Young, shallow Californians. (Is that an oxymoron?)
Since then, I’ve had no confidence in our system of justice.