I have always been a bit puzzled by the jury selection process. As i see it (I’ve been through the process twice), it is a bit bizarre. Basically the plaintiff’s atty. wants people who can be swayed by his arguments. Therefore, he wants people who do not reason well-this is why engineers, doctors, scientists, etc., commonly get rejected. Now, if you really think a trial is a "search for the truth’, you are mistaken; in reality, it is more like a two-act play. The lawyers present the evidence most favorable to their positions, while attempting to withold/suppress information unfavorable to their positions. This was most evident in the OJ Simpson case: Simpson’s lawyers succeeded in turning the trial into a trial of the LAPD, and the judge did nothing to stop it.
Don’t get me wrong: in most states, the judges are not very good (here in MA, most are failed political hacks). in such places, juries offer you the only semblance of fairness you will find. however, I think there should be some minimum standards for jury members-like HS graduate,.full time job, homeowners, etc.-I was not impressed with the jurors chosen for the OJ Simpson trial. 
I think I’ve seen you say this before, and I have to say it’s just not the case. There seems to be a common notion that lawyers want a jury composed of a bunch of slack-jawed, mouth breathing troglodytes that they can befuddle into believing whatever blasphemous bullshit they’re being paid their blood money to spoon feed them this week. This image, while quaint, is untrue.
I don’t want stupid jurors. I don’t want genius jurors. I don’t care about your IQ or how many degrees you have, so long as the degree doesn’t relate to the subject matter of the trial. I’ll probably pay just as much attention to what magazines you read. In a burglary case, the question “have you or a loved one ever been the victim of a burglary?” is far more important than “what was your SAT score?” The voir dire process isn’t even long enough to appreciably evaluate your intelligence, unless you’re the sort who makes it clear the second you open your mouth.
I want people who will be sympathetic to my side, or at least not biased against it, who will decide the facts on the evidence. That’s it. Every question you’re being asked in voir dire relates back to this. If it was really just a matter of picking the stupid, I’d just throw a handful of dimes and jelly beans in the aisles and empanel the scramblers.
No, you have it right. The plaintiff can ask for several million, the defendant can disclaim all liability, and the jury can take the information given them during the trial and find whatever number they think is justified (which may then be lowered or thrown out on appeal).
I said that I thought the case we were being selected for was bogus, that it should have been thrown out on it’s face.
The judge asked how I could know that when I had heard no testimony yet. I said the two sides had been describing it for nearly two hours in their summaries. I was pretty sure there was not much left to tell.
The accuser’s atty asked the judge to dismiss me on his own, but the judge refused, saying the process had gone on long enough, so if the accuser wanted me off he would have to use up one of his own “discretionary” rejections, which he then did.
Seemed the whole thing was a game to them. I was glad not to be a part of it.
I might have felt sorry that my vote wouldn’t be there at the end to kill any awards, but took heart that I may have swayed someone else to see how open and shut the case was.
Learn something new everyday. Thanks.