{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "237",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 237 of 239\n\nThe result is the same even if the defendant's preferred relevant jury pool is used. The White Plains Qualified Wheel is comprised of 8.76% Black or African-American persons and 10.48% Latino or Hispanic persons. (Id. at ¶ 17; see also Martin Aff. at ¶ 55). This results in absolute disparities of 3.69% and 3.64%, respectively. These figures are also comfortably within the range that the Second Circuit has determined does not satisfy the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, as discussed below, the factors that cause the disparity between the White Plains Qualified Wheel and the White Plains Master Jury Wheel, as well as the voting age population, are not the result of systematic exclusion.\n\nIt is only by employing an apples-and-oranges method of comparing the White Plains Qualified Wheel to the jury eligible populations of the “Manhattan Division” or the entire Southern District that the defendant is able to identify disparities that might arguably satisfy the second prong of Duren. Because that method has no basis in the law, the defendant's claim fails at the second prong.\n\nb. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic Exclusion\n\nEven assuming the defendant had satisfied the second prong of the Duren test—which she has not—she most certainly has not demonstrated that any underrepresentation is “due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 (emphasis added). That is, she cannot establish that the exclusion is the product of “the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces.” Id. at 658 (emphasis added). She therefore cannot satisfy the third prong of Duren.\n\nAs then-District Judge Bianco explained, “systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group.” Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40; see also United States v. Barlow, 479 F. App'x 372, 373 (2d Cir.\n\n210\nDOJ-OGR-00003171",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 237 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The result is the same even if the defendant's preferred relevant jury pool is used. The White Plains Qualified Wheel is comprised of 8.76% Black or African-American persons and 10.48% Latino or Hispanic persons. (Id. at ¶ 17; see also Martin Aff. at ¶ 55). This results in absolute disparities of 3.69% and 3.64%, respectively. These figures are also comfortably within the range that the Second Circuit has determined does not satisfy the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, as discussed below, the factors that cause the disparity between the White Plains Qualified Wheel and the White Plains Master Jury Wheel, as well as the voting age population, are not the result of systematic exclusion.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is only by employing an apples-and-oranges method of comparing the White Plains Qualified Wheel to the jury eligible populations of the “Manhattan Division” or the entire Southern District that the defendant is able to identify disparities that might arguably satisfy the second prong of Duren. Because that method has no basis in the law, the defendant's claim fails at the second prong.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "b. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic Exclusion",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even assuming the defendant had satisfied the second prong of the Duren test—which she has not—she most certainly has not demonstrated that any underrepresentation is “due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 (emphasis added). That is, she cannot establish that the exclusion is the product of “the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces.” Id. at 658 (emphasis added). She therefore cannot satisfy the third prong of Duren.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As then-District Judge Bianco explained, “systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group.” Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40; see also United States v. Barlow, 479 F. App'x 372, 373 (2d Cir.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "210",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003171",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Bianco"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "White Plains",
      "Manhattan",
      "Southern District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003171"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the composition of a jury pool and the defendant's claim of underrepresentation. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}