I just came across an article about the difficulty of finding “blank slate” jurors for the Ahmaud Arbery case.

But the whole concept to me is strange. First of all, humans are not “blank slates”. Everyone has biases and opinions. The fact that we allow people to be on juries if they only state that they’re open-minded indicates the extent to which we have to take people at their word, which is no guarantee of a fair trial. Even a determination to be impartial can’t supersede one’s subconscious bias. Secondly, in a world of social media and the internet, the publicity surrounding these cases has already proliferated beyond the immediate locale by the time jury selection begins. A “change of venue” is not even a guarantee that the jury will be more impartial if the case has attracted national attention and people know about the case from the internet. Even worse in a racially-charged case like Ahmaud Arbery, where your opinion on the case is part of your political identity.

Short of a complete black-out of information on a case that has the potential to go to trial, I don’t see how you get around this problem.

What would you suggest for making sure that jurors are more “impartial”? Is there an alternative system that might work better?