> Because I am assuming some level of tech expertise. This is anathema to prosecutors and sometimes even to defense.
[citation needed]
Having done some study of voir dire and what people get excluded for back when I was in college, having gotten far enough in law school before deciding it wasn't what I wanted to do to have taken a trial advocacy class, and having actually not been excused, as a tech professional, the only time I've been in a jury group that wasn't excused as a group prior to voir dire, I've seen no evidence that this is the case.
> First, tech people often have a much larger store of baseline knowledge than common people.
Honestly, I don't think anyone except a certain self-important subset of "tech people" thinks that "tech people" have a larger store of knowledge than is common among professionals with similar educational requirements (and technology actually isn't all that high in educational requirements for a white-collar profession.)
> Neither lawyer wants this as you are bringing your own knowledge of what is "true" into the jury and the lawyers can't override this.
Lawyers don't want you substituting outside prejudice for the evidence presented and influencing others in the jury to do so. Neither do judges. Because, you know, this is juror misconduct.
> Second, tech people often understand statistics and error.
Leaving aside that I think there is little evidence that this is a basis for exclusion -- some "tech people" do, though IME (outside of practitioners in the sub-disciplines of technology most concerned with statistics and error, such as machine learning) not much more than lots of other professions that no one would suggest are systematically excluded from jury pools.
> Third, tech people often have very negative experiences with peer pressure and this often translates to resistance against it.
I don't think there is any evidence that "tech people" are, as a group, less susceptible to peer pressure than anyone else. And, again, resistance to peer pressure is probably not in general a negative trait in jury selection. Logically, it would just reinforce whatever positive or negative factors existed elsewhere, since it just means they are less likely to get negated under pressure from other jurors.
> I have never served on a jury in all the time I have been called. I once watched the defense and prosecution play chicken over who was going to burn their strike to get rid of me.
I can see several indications of possible reasons for that in the attitudes you present in your post (starting with the fact that you clearly and proudly stereotype people by profession) that don't relate to either greater knowledge of anything or any of the other factors you point to.