{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "Case 1:17-cr-00383-PAC Document 855-1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 12 of 20",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "occur. Instead, it is well established in this circuit that the “Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed,” United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22, 26 (2d Cir. 2013), and that a “jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district,” Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918). It should come as no surprise then that a defendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.6 See Andrades, 507 F. App'x at 26; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 18 (stating that “the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”); cf. United States v. Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) (“[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements.”). Second, the prevalence of this practice as well as the compelling justification for it in this case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, “it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse.” (Gov't Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other in-person proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2-3. Thus, in considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's allegations that 6 Because this case concerns the grand jury phase of criminal proceedings, the principles espoused in past precedents endorsing a flexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply a fortiori in the grand jury context. 12 DOJ-OGR-00002833",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "occur. Instead, it is well established in this circuit that the “Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed,” United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22, 26 (2d Cir. 2013), and that a “jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district,” Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It should come as no surprise then that a defendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.6 See Andrades, 507 F. App'x at 26; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 18 (stating that “the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”); cf. United States v. Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) (“[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements.”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the prevalence of this practice as well as the compelling justification for it in this case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, “it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse.” (Gov't Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other in-person proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2-3. Thus, in considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's allegations that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 Because this case concerns the grand jury phase of criminal proceedings, the principles espoused in past precedents endorsing a flexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply a fortiori in the grand jury context.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002833",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Schulte",
      "Fernandez",
      "Plaza-Andrades",
      "Ruthenberg",
      "Bahna"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Queens",
      "Nassau County",
      "Brooklyn",
      "White Plains",
      "Manhattan",
      "New York",
      "Eastern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2020",
      "1918",
      "1973",
      "2013",
      "03/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:17-cr-00383-PAC",
      "Document 855-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002833",
      "507 F. App'x 22",
      "68 F.3d",
      "245 U.S. 480",
      "480 F.2d 726"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the venue requirements for trial and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on grand jury proceedings. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}