The government wants this over with quickly to minimize the bad publicity to the city, to lessen the enormous expense of paying appointed attorneys and adding courthouse security, and to minimize the inconvenience of calling the many witnesses. Therefore, all the defendants are charged with all of the above-listed offenses in the same indictment and are scheduled for trial together. During jury selection at the trial, one of the defendants' attorneys objects because only 50 people responded to their notices out of the 400 which were sent. This attorney moves to discharge the entire panel, to send out new notices, and to start again. Assume the motion is denied.
Jury selection continues and the prosecutor exercises two peremptory challenges.
The defense counsel object and argue that the two challenged jurors are not wearing religious insignia and accuse the prosecutor of trying to end up with a jury of conservative, Godfearing, religious-practicing individuals who are much more likely to convict these particular defendants. As for the other juror, the prosecutor adamantly denies that religion had anything to do with his decision to utilize a peremptory challenge. After the trial where they each testify that they and their partner were somewhere else when all this happened, Al is convicted of both the charges against him. Pat is acquitted. Al appeals, arguing that convicting him of Vandalism and Reckless Arson constitutes double jeopardy.