The author thinks impartiality does not require that a juror completely ignore information learned outside the courtroom. So we don’t know that the author thinks voir dire is unlikely to produce impartial decisions. Under the traditional understanding of impartiality, the author might agree. But the author advocates for a different understanding of impartiality.

Although the author believes impartiality does not require that a jury ignore everything learned outside the courtroom, that doesn’t imply the author thinks a juror needs to have knowledge of a case before trial for the “best” chance of making an impartial decision.

Supported by the author’s perspective in the last paragraph. The author thinks impartiality doesn’t require a juror to have no opinions about the case before trial. Having opinions about the case before trial can be part of being impartial.

Anti-supported. The author thinks impartiality doesn’t require jurors to have no outside knowledge of the case before trial.

We have no evidence the author thinks that the more facts someone knows, the more opinionated they are. Although the author does mention that there’s a general belief that people who know the facts of a case are more likely to hold an opinion about the case, this doesn’t imply that the more facts one knows, the more likely to hold an opinion.