From his book, "In Contempt:"
THE CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN MOVING ALONG slowly, toward trial, without me, and by the time I joined the prosecution, the first twelve jurors had already been selected. While I was assessing the strength of the case, I also decided to take a look at the jury. We were still choosing the alternates, but as soon as I saw the first-teamers, I could tell it was one of the worst juries--from a prosecutor's standpoint--that I'd ever seen. And I'm not talking about race. These were simply not happy-looking, motivated, or successful people. From the first day, I sensed that many of them were angry at the system for various insults and injuries--twelve people lined up at the grinder with big axes.
"They were the best of the lot," Bill said, rubbing his close-cropped beard. "If you think they're bad, you ought to see the ones who were coming up."
“Jury of peers” ought to actually mean something, rather than trial by jury. Unfortunately, there are probably no interests who would support a rule such as a basic logic and reasoning test, and plenty of money with the trial lawyers association that would oppose it. They live to get stubborn morons on their juries.