  We compare two established jury selection procedures meant to safeguard
against the inclusion of biased jurors that are also perceived as causing
minorities to be under-represented in juries. The Strike and Replace procedure
presents potential jurors one-by-one to the parties, while the Struck procedure
presents all potential jurors before the parties exercise vetoes. In
equilibrium, Struck more effectively excludes extreme jurors than Strike and
Replace but leads to a worse representation of minorities. Simulations suggest
that the advantage of Struck in terms of excluding extremes is sizable in a
wide range of cases. In contrast, Strike and Replace only provides a
significantly better representation of minorities if the minority and majority
are heavily polarized. When parameters are estimated to match the parties'
selection of jurors by race with jury-selection data from Mississippi in trials
against black defendants, the procedures' outcomes are substantially different,
and the size of the trade-off between objectives can be quantitatively
evaluated.
