The 12-person jury that will hear testimony in the case of the People of the State of Illinois v. James Degorski is comprised of six men and six women whose ages range from 20s to 60s. There are nine white jurors, two black jurors and one Hispanic juror. Four alternates also were chosen.
Male, 30s, born in Paris, stay-at-home dad to three daughters.
Heard of the murders, but says he could judge the case based solely on evidence given during the trial.
Would not impose the death penalty for multiple murders in every case.
Male, 60s, a Vietnam War veteran.
Heard about the Brown's Chicken case but has formed no opinions on it.
Thinks the death penalty is justified some of the time.
Male, 20s, studying massage therapy.
Unfamiliar with the case.
No strong opinions on the death penalty but is not against it.
Female, 60s, 30-year employee of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
Could vote to sentence a defendant to death after she listened to all the evidence.
Male, 60s, retired.
Heard about James Degorski and co-defendant Juan Luna through media reports but hasn't formed an opinion on their guilt or innocence.
Approves of the death penalty but would not always impose it for the murder of seven people
Heard some information about the murders but doesn't remember specifics.
Does not believe death is the only appropriate punishment for multiple murders.
Female, early 50s, victim of domestic violence.
Expressed compassion for the victims in her jury questionnaire.
Said she does not have a problem with the death penalty.
Male, mid-20s, a fan of "Court TV" and "Cops."
Recalls hearing about the 1993 murders at the time, but not in the last five or six years.
Approves of the death penalty but does not think it should be imposed automatically for murder.
Female, 40s, corrections officer at Cook County Jail; victim of a strong arm robbery 15 to 20 years ago.
Read about Degorski and Luna but has no opinion on their guilt of innocence.
Supports the death penalty under certain circumstances.
May have heard about the case but didn't pay much attention to it.
Supports the death penalty depending upon the nature of the crime and the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime.
Knew some details about the case and had formed an opinion but said he would put that aside and base his decision on the evidence presented during the trial.
Supports the death penalty, but would not apply it automatically. Says death may be an appropriate penalty under extreme circumstances.
Female, 50s, former scuba instructor whose husband was a Navy diver.
Recalls the murders but didn't follow the case and thought it had already been resolved.
Doesn't oppose the death penalty and but said she would want to hear mitigation and aggravation arguments before imposing it.
Four alternate jurors have also been seated.
Male, late 20s, recently married former auto mechanic.
Recalled hearing about the murders and about Luna's life sentence, but had formed no opinions on it.
Supports the death penalty but would not automatically apply it following a murder conviction. However, under questioning by the defense, he indicated he would likely impose the death penalty for seven murders.
Female, late 20s or early 30s.
Has heard about the case but has formed no opinions on the defendant's guilt or innocence.
Has no objection to the death penalty but said just because a defendant is eligible to receive it doesn't mean he should receive it.
Male, 60s, retiree who embarked upon a second career in sales.
Recalled Luna's name from his trial two years ago.
Favors the death penalty but would not apply it to every defendant convicted of murder; would consider life without parole for a defendant convicted of multiple murders.
Male, 20s, part-time student.
Heard a little about the Brown's Chicken case recently.
Would consider imposing the death penalty but believes death is not the only appropriate sentence for someone convicted of murder.