I was once selected for jury duty. I was about 20th in line for
selection. One of the jurors in front of me was a computer programmer. The
defense lawyer asked him if he could see things in shades of grey since he
normally only worked with concepts such as true or false. The man said yes
he thought so.
The defense attorney then said "we want to be sure ... are you
sure?"
The man thought a bit and then said Yes, he was sure.
The prosecutor than vetoed him as an invertebrate.
By the time selection got to me they were picking the last alternate
juror. They had just interviewed the lady (24, high school educated,
service job) in front of me. They would have to pick her or me. They
weren't happy with her because it wasn't clear if she could pay attention to
the trial so there was no telling how she would vote.
When they questioned me I decided that I would be a complete
automaton. I answered all the questions they asked as directly an
succinctly as possible. The prosecuting attorney ended his questioning by
asking if I resented being picked for jury duty because my answers were so
terse.
I said "No."
There was consternation among the lawyers ... you could tell they
wanted to veto the lady, me, and hopefully get a nice flounder on the next
cast but without conferring one sleaze ball lawyer couldn't act without
giving the other sleaze ball an advantage. They just picked the lady. I
ignored the remaining summons to jury selection for the rest of the month.
Bottom line, judges don't disqualify people from serving on juries
... attorneys do. Attorneys have unlimited challenges for cause ...
although the cause needs to be upheld by the judge. And then a set number
of challenges where no cause need be given. I suspect what happened is that
one of the attorneys didn't like the mathematicians looks and challenged him
based on his profession. The judge being a goof ball sustained the
challenge...