  We compare two jury selection procedures meant to safeguard against the
inclusion of biased jurors that are perceived as causing minorities to be
under-represented. 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 their challenges. Struck more effectively
excludes extreme jurors but leads to a worse representation of minorities. The
advantage of Struck in terms of excluding extremes is sizable in a wide range
of cases. In contrast, Strike and Replace better represents minorities only if
the minority and majority are polarized. Results are robust to assuming the
parties statistically discriminate against jurors based on group identity.
