The idea here is that 11 jurors declined to apply the law as instructed by the judge, when in fact it was 1, who exercised the ancient Anglo power of jury nullification of the law, which you'd think these traditionalists would be proud of.
I would argue that we could still have jury trials, but we have to acknowledge that "jury of your peers" means something specific, and people aren't ready to acknowledge that yet.
I’ve talked with quite a few DAs with many years experience. They all say the same thing. Getting convictions with “diverse” juries has become almost impossible in the last ten years.
This is bleak. Moving to bench trials isn’t the answer because an increasing number of judges are nons who refuse to punish murderers and rapists as a matter of principle.
"If you don't have jury of twelve white men, then the court will not deliver justice, in regards to either innocence or guilt."
