>>>What do you think ?
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8377236.stm
>>
>>I don't live in the South so it's not for me to say how much things have changed. This passage in the article jumped out at me, though:
>>
>>The local district attorney, desperate to score a conviction in such a high-profile case, has played it dirty to win.
>>
>>One of his tricks, exposed by a refreshingly impartial Mississippi Supreme Court, was to fiddle the jury selection to exclude black jurors.
>>
>>That isn't playing it dirty, it is completely standard behavior in all jury trials, by both the prosecution and the defense. Of course they want a jury they think will be sympathetic to their side. So they seek jurors they think are and try to exclude those they think aren't. It can be based on ethnicity, gender, profession, where you live (i.e. income) -- many factors other than race. There are those who specialize in advising trial lawyers during the jury selection stage. Many trials are essentially decided right there. (O.J., anyone?)
>>
>>This is not to defend overly zealous prosecutors (they are why we no longer have a death penalty in Illinois) or using race as a criterion in jury shaping. Just saying this is standard practice.
>
>Six trials for the same offense seems absurd

Well, I'll agree with that. In theory it's not supposed to happen (double jeopardy) but I guess the difference is a hung jury vs. an acquittal.