Not necessarily. I think it's possible to identify people who, because of the way they talk about their experiences, generally give you a sense of whether or not they are past it and have moved on, versus if they are clearly expressing some emotion still attached to describing the experience. That said, I've also seen jurors who describe a horrific experience in their past and say they are completely fine with it, but when they get on the jury, that ends up not being the case.
I think it's very difficult to judge resiliency. There are cues based on how the person talks about the experience, but I think it is just another piece of information that the lawyers and the judge can take into consideration when making the jury selection decision. It also gives the juror an opportunity to ask himself or herself if this is the right case for them, because, again, the more information going into it, the better. We're often good judges of ourselves—not always, but often—and of whether we're someone who could handle it.