Members of juries and other deliberative bodies can arrive at different decisions than they would reach individually. The role of how information is aggregated in jury-type settings has been well studied, but how this impacts who gets selected to serve on juries has received less attention. When forming a jury, attorneys consider how its composition will affect the outcome of the case. I propose a formal framework in which jurors, who vary in the accuracy of their information as well as preferences against wrongful conviction or acquittal, decide over a case according to a unanimous rule. The defense and prosecution observe the differences among jurors and can make peremptory strikes. I find that under some conditions litigants may prefer to strike better informed jurors; and that whether more information is preferable depends on the bias of the jurors.

Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event do not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.