How did you come up with that one? Plus, it was an idea of mine, most likely it won't happen because of 'jury of your peers' clause. Which is not necessary written in the Constitution, but pulled (created) from the 14th Amendment.
If you don't like the idea, come up with another that insures a fair, reasonable, unbiased jurist.
Preexisting opinion. Have you ever preformed jury duty? For instance, sitting on a grand jury a jurist arrives in the morning to court and as a group they are briefed that they will hear several cases and of what is expected of them. These jurist have no idea of which cases are being presented to them. They sit, listen, ask questions and vote.
Basically the same is true as being a jurist on the Zimmerman trial. A citizen is notified, they go to court, some are chosen to be jurist, some chosen to be alternates, some go home. None know what the case is they may be hearing. And since several million live in/around Sanford, I imagine that jury selection is bi-weekly, (many cases going to trial).
Jury by ones Peers is the best we have, and yet, it isn't really a jury composed of ones peers. Women defendants do not get a jury full of women, a medical doctor does not have a jury full of medical doctors, a White defendant doesn't get a all white jury, etc.
A Jury Of One's Peers
Introduction to Trial by Jury
Voir Dire: Creating the Jury