Perhaps but at least what was emphasized to me as a panelist was that it was not my job to interpret the law. The judge was there to answer any doubts we had about what the law meant or was actually requiring of us. Our role was to listen to the evidence and determine if the prosecution’s case proved guilt on each count. We had a further role to sentence once we convicted but that’s peculiar to a court martial.
Determining my biases and their potential impact on the trial was really the judge and the lawyer’s role. That is why you go through jury selection. The defense has the right to dismiss any juror that they can convince the judge is biased. And they could dismiss up to three of us for no reason at all.
I mean saying we could all be better critical thinkers is kind of a universal good. I’m not sure I’d want my jury to be the most educated people in society for example. Since as the accused you only need one juror to hold out I’d think you’d want as diverse a jury as you can get.