There's loads of scenarios like that. All white jury against a black defendant comes to mind(or all black against white or any other combination you can think of). There's also plenty of research showing that juries are more likely to be sympathetic if you are attractive or someone they can identify with, with unattractive people/people from other social classes getting worse verdicts for the same crime.

That's not to say that judges do not exhibit such biases, but once again - they should be trained specifically against that. There is no such training or expectation on the juries. And yes, of course juries are asked "do you have any bias against this person" but I don't believe for a second that actually works.

Nothing you've listed is premeditated. Jury candidate selection is random, so premeditation is literally impossible unless the candidate selection process itself is compromised.

Certainly you can introduce bias in the jury vetting process, but that's what your defense attorney is for.

Well in that case judge selection also can't be premeditated since you get a random judge, no?

A small number of judges in a given region to corrupt or coerce, but still doable. Can't say the same for jury candidate selection.

Furthermore, your defense attorney has the opportunity to filter out jurors that have bias against their client. Not so for judges.

randomly selected how? By the order a $9 an hour secretary enters stuff into an excel spreadsheet? In some places yes. Even if it is random(normal case)...random selection of which old rich jaded PHD holding white guy you get? In many places yes.