It's the way it's done in most of California too. And many other places. Tons of studies over the past 25 years on a fast track jury process.
We have fewer successful appeals now and more convictions. We're able to keep moving cases quickly (average length of trial is now 3-8 days even in major felony cases). I've seen criminal defense attorneys, employees of LE agencies (but not uniformed officers), professors in fields such as alcohol/drug studies or criminal justice get seated in cases dealing with alcohol or drugs. On and on. Wives of LE, etc., all seated.
And the key thing is that jurors need to be honest on the questionnaire (which asks about such things as jury nullification and whether one has read a lot about the crime in question). But even saying one believes in jury nullification doesn't mean a person will be booted - it depends on the trial and the lawyers involved. It's crucial that jurors agree that they will be just. Some people say "No, I can't." And the judge dismisses them (neither side has to give up one of their challenges). Any version of "No, I can't" such as "I always believe what police say; I think police are always right if it's to the point where someone has been arrested" results in being removed (and it's fairly uncommon).
At any rate, my county got a federal grant to experiment with this system about 20 years ago. Now, the results from that grant (which was given to many different counties in many states) are well known. A commitment to justice is more important than who your relatives may be, in selecting jurors.
And I'll reiterate that we've had some high profile cases (that were appealed), but so far, not one murder conviction has been overturned. The woman who killed her two little boys to get even with her physician husband for having affairs (which isn't clear that he did) is still in prison for life. The woman who killed her abusive husband and lied and said it was a stranger who broke in and did it, and then switched to a self-defense defense has gotten 25 years to life and is still in prison (her little boy, now basically an orphan, is still orchestrating appeals - he's now 20 years old). She has served 12 years already.
The judges I've interviewed about these changes say that, for them, it means fewer trials because defendants plead out. Many (about half) of plea bargains take place after jury selection, with many of those on the same day as the jury is seated. Judges say the psychological impact of seeing 12 of one's peers actually staring at them across the courtroom, ready to pass judgment is huge. While many criminals avoid being around "regular citizens," they now see that they are about to be adjudicated by people who are not all their own age, their own sex, their own ethnicity, their own socioeconomic class.
IMO and IME.