Jury of peers and pros

Juries of peers can have their biases, sometimes more-so on popular, local, emotional, and family issues. Judges can have their biases, sometimes toward business and government interests, and, since they have a public decision record, possible personal bias on known issues. In cases where the defendant must choose between these two options, they have to weigh the possible biases of each. It might be better if these two options combined to have a jury of both peers and "pros", where pros roughly means people who've passed the relevant bar exam and are selected for the purpose.

There could perhaps be four pools from which the pros would be selected, where each jury would have one random selection from each of those pools. Because of the US two party system and their importance and sometimes conflicting views, to try to avoid bias of the more popular party's stances, the two parties will each have one pool to which they select the members. The independent parties could collectively have their own pool as well, though that selection could be complicated due to the power of the major parties. The fourth pool could be elected from the local eligible population for this particular purpose.

Jury selection procedures would be followed for the pro jurists just as it would for the peer jurists. Unlike the peers, the pros would have to release their final verdict choices after the case, to be used in future jury selections for any decisions of bias, etc.

There would have to be at least as many peers as pros in a given jury. For any decision that needs a lower threshold than unanimity, that threshold must be at least matched separately for the pros and peers, eg for an 8 member jury, at least 2 pros and 2 peers must agree on a simple majority verdict (plus one more of one of them to reach actual majority). This will help fight any bias this system is trying to remove.