Should prosecutors hire jury consultants?

Michael Froomkin, blogging at Discourse, raises the very interesting question here. From his post:

If the US Attorney’s office uses jury consultants to tell them how to select a prosecution-friendly jury, that would seem to me to be not just unsavory, but to raise some due process and right to jury trial issues.

But, I have to say that based on a cursory survey of the literature, it seems my instincts here may be misplaced: I’ve found half a dozen academic articles that just report on this phenomenon as if there is nothing odd or unsavory about it; if anything the drift is that the poor under-resourced prosecutors (the ones who just spent $5-10 million on the Liberty Six trials) need consultants to level the playing field.

I suppose if all the consultants are doing is helping the prosecution spin better then that doesn’t raise a constitutional question, although I still think that it is not a good use of public money. But if they are helping prosecutors identify pro-prosecution jurors, even by attitudinal rather then demographic factors, that seems to to me to take us yet another step away from the jury system we would wish for.

Some surely would say that the government is only responding to an arms race started by wealthy criminal defendants and, who knows, there may be something to that in some cases. But in this case the defendants are not wealthy. Has the public defender’s office got jury consultants too? If they do, couldn’t they make a non-aggression pact on the jury consultants and save us all some money?

Prosecutors use jury consultants in high-profile cases all of the time. Other than the cost, I had never thought that it was an issue, but Froomkin raises some interesting points. Thoughts?