I really enjoyed this article, but it made me realize that I don't have a good understanding the goals of the voir dire process. It reminded me of job interviews, where certain questions are off-limits in order to hopefully limit the effects of some of the personal biases of the interviewer.

From a game design point of view, it's fascinating. The selection process attempts to give both opponents an equal chance of eliminating undesired pieces from the board. But from the system's point of view, balancing that power against the delivery of justice as innocent-until-proven-guilty/burden-of-proof/reasonable-doubt seems kinda suspect.

I'm totally going down the rabbithole reading about this over the weekend :)

Yes. They asked if I had served on a jury before and if the jury had reached a verdict. The battery case was the second time I served. I answered yes that I had served and no the jury did not reach a verdict. They then asked what the prior case was about - maybe since it wasn't related they didn't boot me. The third time I served it was a burglary case so I answered that yes I had served twice before, once was a hung jury and once we arrived at a verdict. No further questions.