This is a real problem. I was dismissed from a DUI case last year because I felt that it was a problem that the officer had forcibly administered a blood test while at the scene (this was after the Supreme Court case). The judge and prosecutor were very vocal about the fact that they were only interested in jurors who would be content to entertain whether the accused was intoxicated, without going any further into the matter.
I hear his sort of comment often. I don't understand why people value "being honest to a lawyer who is obstructing justice" over "fulfilling their civil duty to serve on a jury".