If I understand the jury-selection system correctly, it does just that.
Persons who have evidently prejudged the case on the basis of news reports or their personal views of an issue to be resolved are automatically excused, I believe by the judge. Both prosecutor and defense are entitled to exclude panelists for cause, which can be inability to grasp the significance of matters to be dealt with. For example, you as CEO of the Acme Corporation are being sued by Mr. Ole McDonald of EIEIO Agricultural Enterprises on the basis that his crops have been damaged by the release of a chemical from your plant into a drainage ditch which runs alongside his fields. You stipulate the chemical’s release (tests can easily prove your stipulation), but claim the chemical is neutral and should cause no harm to the crops. He claims otherwise and his attorney and yours have lined up experts. It would be entirely appropriate for both your lawyer and his to seek out jurors who have retained or currently use some knowledge of chemistry, and to exclude those who do not for cause. Couple that with your (usually three) peremptory challenges, and you get a fair group of your peers.
BTW, apropos the bunny justice question, my understanding is that “jury of your peers” refers only to their legal status as freemen and with no nobles in America and no slaves or indentured servants around since 1865 is effectively meaningless. You are entitled to a cross-section of the community, or such subset as the two parties to the case concur on, as in our chemistry example above. You may reasonably expect to see a jury which is half male and half female, give or take a person, has a racial composition roughly equivalent to the community where the panel is formed, etc. You may not have a jury of twelve Methodists or Moslems because you happen to be of that faith, twelve left-handed lesbians because you happen to be one, etc. (I do realize there is a lot of wiggle room in those two etc.'s. That is what makes lawyers rich.)