{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "126",
    "date": "01/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 126 Filed 01/25/21 Page 10 of 13\n\nManhattan Division, Mr. Martin found statistically significant underrepresentation using both the comparative disparity and standard deviation analyses. Id. ¶¶ 67-68, 74-75.\n\nTo satisfy the third Duren element, a party need only establish that the underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of a cognizable group during the jury selection processes—i.e., that the discrepancy is “inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized.” Duren, 439 U.S. at 366. Regardless of whether the White Plains qualified jury wheel is compared to the eligible jury population of the Manhattan Division or to that of the entire Southern District of New York, the primary reason for the significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors on the White Plains wheel is the choice to pursue an indictment from a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division, as opposed to the Manhattan Division or the District as a whole. This decision resulted in the systematic exclusion of eligible jurors residing in the southern counties of this District.\n\nMoreover, Mr. Martin’s standard deviation analysis found that regardless of whether the Manhattan Division or the entire District is used as the point of comparison, the percent of both Black and Hispanic jurors in the White Plains jury wheel differs from that in the comparison population by more than three standard deviations. Martin Decl. ¶¶ 74-75. According to Mr. Martin, if there is no systematic overrepresentation or underrepresentation of a distinctive group, the divergence of demographics should exceed three deviations only approximately 0.5% of the time. Id. ¶ 73. Thus, the underrepresentations here are “not the result of random factors, chance, or luck” but “the result of a systematic process that under represents” each group. Id. ¶¶ 74-75.\n\nSee Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1248 (finding fair cross-section violation due to systematic exclusion of residents from communities with large minority populations).\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00002330",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 126 Filed 01/25/21 Page 10 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Manhattan Division, Mr. Martin found statistically significant underrepresentation using both the comparative disparity and standard deviation analyses. Id. ¶¶ 67-68, 74-75.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To satisfy the third Duren element, a party need only establish that the underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of a cognizable group during the jury selection processes—i.e., that the discrepancy is “inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized.” Duren, 439 U.S. at 366. Regardless of whether the White Plains qualified jury wheel is compared to the eligible jury population of the Manhattan Division or to that of the entire Southern District of New York, the primary reason for the significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors on the White Plains wheel is the choice to pursue an indictment from a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division, as opposed to the Manhattan Division or the District as a whole. This decision resulted in the systematic exclusion of eligible jurors residing in the southern counties of this District.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, Mr. Martin’s standard deviation analysis found that regardless of whether the Manhattan Division or the entire District is used as the point of comparison, the percent of both Black and Hispanic jurors in the White Plains jury wheel differs from that in the comparison population by more than three standard deviations. Martin Decl. ¶¶ 74-75. According to Mr. Martin, if there is no systematic overrepresentation or underrepresentation of a distinctive group, the divergence of demographics should exceed three deviations only approximately 0.5% of the time. Id. ¶ 73. Thus, the underrepresentations here are “not the result of random factors, chance, or luck” but “the result of a systematic process that under represents” each group. Id. ¶¶ 74-75.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1248 (finding fair cross-section violation due to systematic exclusion of residents from communities with large minority populations).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002330",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Martin",
      "Jackman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan Division",
      "White Plains Division",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 126",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002330"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing issues of jury representation and demographics. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}