Thats apples and oranges. Same church means you probably know each other. So the potential bias is high. So in your example its no different than both being a member of the same Elks lodge, both being employed at the same company, etc.the government.
so if we shouldn’t have a juror that goes to the same church as the defendant, should an Atheist juro be allowed if the defendant is Atheist? Trying to understand the extent we are required to go to say the jury is acceptable. Did trial juries in the 1800s exclude based on church affiliation? If not, does that invalidate those jury decisions? I think we are going too far by micro managing who is on a jury. We need a judicial system that is willing to ignore the insignificant whining of unfairness. I’m curious if during the days of using horses everyday did courts exclude horse owners on juries for people accused of being a horse thieves? I can’t imagine a horse owner being able to be impartial knowing the costs involved in owning and caring for a horse as important as they were in those days. How would a horse thief ever get a fair trial?
Well, considering the jury is supposed to be made up of your peers, why not? Heck, if I told my attorney I wanted nothing but Methodists in my jury pool, its my prerogative. (I may not get it but if I feel it will help my case... )