Seems to me that would cause them to more diligently judge carefully their peers, zealous to both defend the innocent (to make sure they're not judged unfairly themselves if they are falsely accused) as well as get scammers and malicious parties cured or censored.

Personally, I don't think the point of using jurors is for them to be zealous. Rather, I think that because jurors are randomly selected (as I interpret your US law), they are considered a fair representation of the average citizen because they are allowed to have as little to do with the case presented to them as possible.

As I understand it, it would promote a conflict if jury members were, for example, shareholders in the company that a person accused of harming the company. So if by chance a person was selected who worked in the company or held shares in it, they would be excluded from the trial, I think.