I don't know. I don't like the idea of professional juries. Professionals would get captured by the legal profession. It would be like a panel of 12 lawyers. There's a reason for a panel citizens.
But I can't think of a reason why the judge couldn't pick the jurors instead of the two sides. The lawyers end up eliminating a lot of quality people. If your client is guilty your not going to want someone too rational. If your case is weak your going to want someone you can sway. If the judge did it he would only have to decide whether someone could be fair and reasonable.
I can see a reason to eliminate people who have a connection to anyone in the trial or people with certain issues (someone who has been raped may be a bad choice for a rape trial for instance) but over all, the first 15 people in the pool who don’t have a medical issue that would preclude them, speak English and can serve seems pretty reasonable to me. I don’t know why there is very much selection needed. How did they select jurors say 60 or 70 years ago?