{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 20",
    "date": "03/24/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 20\n\n\"jurors are needed in each courthouse, names are drawn from each qualified wheel and summonses are sent to those individuals.\" Id.\n\nAPPLICABLE LAW\n\nI. Sixth Amendment\n\nA \"representative jury array remains the expression of the community's role in securing\" an impartial trial. Alston v. Manson, 791 F.2d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1986). In recognition of that promise, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury venire drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.2 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). To establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, a defendant must prove each of the following elements:\n\n(1) That the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community;\n\n(2) That the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and\n\n(3) That this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.\n\nDuren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).\n\nDemonstrating a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, however, is not enough to prevail under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 367. Under Supreme Court teachings, \"States remain free to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide reasonable exemptions so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community.\" Id. (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538). Accordingly, the Government may rebut the\n\n2 The fair cross-section guarantee has been understood to apply in the context of both grand and petit juries. See United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966, 973 (D. Conn. 1992).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002826",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"jurors are needed in each courthouse, names are drawn from each qualified wheel and summonses are sent to those individuals.\" Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "APPLICABLE LAW\n\nI. Sixth Amendment",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A \"representative jury array remains the expression of the community's role in securing\" an impartial trial. Alston v. Manson, 791 F.2d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1986). In recognition of that promise, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury venire drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.2 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). To establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, a defendant must prove each of the following elements:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(1) That the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community;\n\n(2) That the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and\n\n(3) That this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Demonstrating a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, however, is not enough to prevail under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 367. Under Supreme Court teachings, \"States remain free to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide reasonable exemptions so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community.\" Id. (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538). Accordingly, the Government may rebut the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The fair cross-section guarantee has been understood to apply in the context of both grand and petit juries. See United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966, 973 (D. Conn. 1992).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002826",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alston",
      "Manson",
      "Taylor",
      "Louisiana",
      "Duren",
      "Missouri",
      "Osorio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Connecticut"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/24/2021",
      "1986",
      "1975",
      "1979",
      "1992"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP",
      "Document 1859",
      "791 F.2d 255",
      "419 U.S. 522",
      "439 U.S. 357",
      "801 F. Supp. 966",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002826"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the Sixth Amendment and the fair cross-section requirement for jury selection. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}