My experience is that you have to "play dumb" not to get kicked off. The last time I was impaneled, the prosecutor asked if I, as a juror, would be comfortable if the injured party (an assault case) did not testify. I said, sure, since the prosecution wasn't representing them.

I didn't mean to be glib, but it got me dismissed immediately. It seems to me that any knowledge of law or procedure will get you dismissed.

point is, if you want to be on a jury, work hard NOT to give away any knowledge of the legal system.

I would take it a step further -- if you want to serve on a jury, you need to pretend to have no education at all. The last time I was called up for jury duty, all I did was (truthfully) state that I was a PhD student during voir dire, and that was that, I was out.

I had the opposite experience for a sexual assault case. I demonstrated knowledge of legal procedure and general intelligence and was selected immediately.

I was asked about possible conflicts of interest and indicated that my father is an attorney who practiced in the same state. Asked for my profession, I replied that I am a bioinformaticist and was asked to explain the term. I said "I write computer code to help biologists analyze and use their data." This was in a university town. The prosecutor opined that I must be "pretty smart" and that she expected I came with an understanding of biology and biotechnology, all of which I affirmed. She asked if I would use that knowledge to assess DNA evidence that could be presented during the trial. I responded "No, I would limit my interpretation to only what was provided by testimony or otherwise affirmed during the trial." The prosecutor looked momentarily surprised at the precision with which my answer addressed the legal burdens required of a finder of fact, and then simply replied, "Ok, thank you." I was then immediately named to the jury.

Perhaps your attitude or delivery got you dismissed, or perhaps your choice of words suggested the opposite of what you imply here - a fundamentally flawed perception of the role of the prosecution? It's certainly technically correct that the prosecutor represents the state, not the victim, and that victim representation is its own ball of wax. Your reasoning, however, seems suspect. Paraphrasing: "Because the victim is not represented by the prosecutor, I have no problem with his not testifying." That's a non sequitur; the antecedent in no way implies the consequent. I could see the prosecutor rejecting you for appearing to be trying to impress (and failing) with your grasp of legal reasoning, fearing that you might not faithfully execute the court's instructions.

Then again, there are probably plenty of attorneys that just don't trust smart people.

Thank you. People who treat jury duty as a burden and a job for suckers are playing the game that they will never be in a trial where a jury will decide their fate.

And while that's likely a game you win, I also wear my seatbelt despite not betting on crashing my car.

...or maybe it is time to reconsider jury trials, especially as cases become more technically complex. The fact that lawyers reflexively kick highly educated jurors off during voir dire speaks volumes about a typical jury's ability to understand technical details. There is a good case to be made that a diverse panel of judges is better able to decide the facts of a case (and before anyone asks, it is trivial to have a separate judge or panel of judges determine sentencing).

It’s a bit moot though. Even if you’re ra-ra wild about jury duty, the chance that you actually get selected isn’t especially high.

I think most people know this and figure they’re just going to have to waste a few hours only to be sent home (or worse, get selected and then sent home after settlement).