I’m not here to debate the guilt or innocence of the defendant in the Officer Ceriale (sp) murder trial in Chicago. What I don’t understand is this: If a jury of 12 people came up 11 to 1 against the defendant (all or nothing is the system here – not a majority rule situation), why does the prosecution get a 2nd chance at trying this guy? The man was not proven guilty by the standards the courts have set. Why will he be tried again? To me, this goes against the basic rules of prosecution, but what do I know. Someone please 'splain.
Part two to my question is, how does the court define “a jury of your peers”? It seems that if we choose a jury that closely resembles the defendant’s background,etc., we should be seeing gang-banger juries, rich white businessman juries, etc., not the housewives and secretaries and blue-collar workers that currently make up juries. How do they choose?