A word about jury selection and “trial by one’s peers”

[Damocles]

I’m of the opinion that juries in criminal trials ought to be reflective of multiple factors including the community’s racial composition, age distribution, gender, and pre-tax personal income. This is because the phrase “trial by a jury of one’s peers” invites some pretty natural follow-on questions, such as “Who is my peer, exactly?”

I’m mainly concerned with ensuring that the outcomes of criminal trials are ones which have been thoroughly deliberated by a broadly representative cross-section of the community, and which hence enjoy the support of the community when considering the jury’s decisions to be just, wise, and acceptable.

This is also about making sure that you avoid expensive appellate cases based on misapplication of court procedures or potential biases baked into the system.

[MarkD]

I've studied a lot of case law pertaining to the Constitution, and I have never seen any cases that have given any specificity to the meaning of the words "one's peers." There have been cases about state laws that barred all black riespeople from serving on juries - that was struck down,  of course - and cases in which attorneys were using the power of "preemptory challenges" to prevent members of certain races or sexes from serving on a jury. But I haven't heard of any cases in which courts have ruled that juries MUST have a cross-section of the public, in terms of race, sex, age, income, etc. And I am not interested in trying to create any new law saying so. You don't need to get upset about adhering to any kind of strict rule about the words "one's peers."