{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "211",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 11\n\nGhislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment (\"Motion\").\n\nIn its opposition (\"Opp.\") to the Motion, the government does not dispute that if the White Plains jury pool is compared to the eligible juror population of either the Southern District of New York or the more racially-diverse counties from which jurors are drawn for the Manhattan courthouse (the \"Manhattan Counties\"1)—the jurors who will also be weighing the evidence at her trial—Black and Hispanic jurors are significantly underrepresented. According to the government's own expert: \"The Manhattan and the Southern District communities are significantly more African American and Hispanic than the White Plains community. Thus, [] the White Plains master jury wheel . . . will not be representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic.\" Opp. Ex. 12 (Report of Bernard R. Siskin) ¶ 11.\n\nMoreover, the government concedes that Black and Hispanic jurors constitute \"distinctive\" groups for purposes of the three-part analysis prescribed in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), and that Ms. Maxwell has thus satisfied the first of the three Duren prongs necessary to establish a prima facie violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Opp. 205. And the government does not assert that attainment of a fair cross-section would have been incompatible with a significant state interest, as is necessary to overcome a prima facie showing of a violation. Duren, 439 U.S. at 368.\n\n1 The government takes issue with Ms. Maxwell's use of the terms \"Manhattan Division\" and \"White Plains Division\" in her opening brief, on the ground that the Southern District is not divided into \"divisions\" by statute. Although the Second Circuit has used the term \"division\" in a similar context, see, e.g., United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1241 (2d Cir. 1995) (referring to \"Hartford Division\"), Ms. Maxwell will use the terms \"Manhattan Counties\" and \"White Plains Counties\" here.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003767",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment (\"Motion\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In its opposition (\"Opp.\") to the Motion, the government does not dispute that if the White Plains jury pool is compared to the eligible juror population of either the Southern District of New York or the more racially-diverse counties from which jurors are drawn for the Manhattan courthouse (the \"Manhattan Counties\"1)—the jurors who will also be weighing the evidence at her trial—Black and Hispanic jurors are significantly underrepresented. According to the government's own expert: \"The Manhattan and the Southern District communities are significantly more African American and Hispanic than the White Plains community. Thus, [] the White Plains master jury wheel . . . will not be representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic.\" Opp. Ex. 12 (Report of Bernard R. Siskin) ¶ 11.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the government concedes that Black and Hispanic jurors constitute \"distinctive\" groups for purposes of the three-part analysis prescribed in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), and that Ms. Maxwell has thus satisfied the first of the three Duren prongs necessary to establish a prima facie violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Opp. 205. And the government does not assert that attainment of a fair cross-section would have been incompatible with a significant state interest, as is necessary to overcome a prima facie showing of a violation. Duren, 439 U.S. at 368.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The government takes issue with Ms. Maxwell's use of the terms \"Manhattan Division\" and \"White Plains Division\" in her opening brief, on the ground that the Southern District is not divided into \"divisions\" by statute. Although the Second Circuit has used the term \"division\" in a similar context, see, e.g., United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1241 (2d Cir. 1995) (referring to \"Hartford Division\"), Ms. Maxwell will use the terms \"Manhattan Counties\" and \"White Plains Counties\" here.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003767",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Bernard R. Siskin"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Manhattan",
      "White Plains",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1979",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 211",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003767",
      "439 U.S. 357",
      "46 F.3d 1240"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of 11."
}