{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "Case 2:17-cr-00365-JMA Document 1859 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 20",
    "date": "03/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\" Id. (emphasis added). And in applying this principle, the Bahna court concluded that the correct community was not the entire Eastern District, but the two counties—Nassau and Suffolk—comprising the Uniondale courthouse. Id. Thus because there was no underrepresentation shown between the Uniondale jury wheel (e.g. the jury venire) and the Uniondale counties (e.g. the community), the court rejected the defendant's fair cross-section challenge. Id.\n\nJust as Bahna rejected the proposition that the relevant community was the entire Eastern District, this Court also rejects Schulte's contention that the relevant community is the Manhattan counties or the entire District. See id. Because Schulte's grand jury venire was drawn from White Plains, Bahna instructs the Court to \"look to that division\" as the relevant community in assessing his fair cross-section challenge. See id. The Court must therefore conclude that the White Plains counties represent the relevant community.\n\nThere is one caveat. The precursor to applying Bahna, of course, is that it must have been proper for the Government to have sought the Indictment from White Plains. 68 F.3d at 24 (\"Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\") (emphasis added). And on this issue, Schulte contends that the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from White Plains \"deviated from the established, court-tested, and constitutional practice of indicting defendants in the division in which the offenses allegedly occurred and in which the case will be tried.\" (Schulte Br. at 2.) This argument must be rejected for two reasons.\n\nFirst, the Court finds no persuasive or binding authority that supports the premise that the Government must indict defendants in the same courthouse as where the trial is scheduled to",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\" Id. (emphasis added). And in applying this principle, the Bahna court concluded that the correct community was not the entire Eastern District, but the two counties—Nassau and Suffolk—comprising the Uniondale courthouse. Id. Thus because there was no underrepresentation shown between the Uniondale jury wheel (e.g. the jury venire) and the Uniondale counties (e.g. the community), the court rejected the defendant's fair cross-section challenge. Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Just as Bahna rejected the proposition that the relevant community was the entire Eastern District, this Court also rejects Schulte's contention that the relevant community is the Manhattan counties or the entire District. See id. Because Schulte's grand jury venire was drawn from White Plains, Bahna instructs the Court to \"look to that division\" as the relevant community in assessing his fair cross-section challenge. See id. The Court must therefore conclude that the White Plains counties represent the relevant community.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is one caveat. The precursor to applying Bahna, of course, is that it must have been proper for the Government to have sought the Indictment from White Plains. 68 F.3d at 24 (\"Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\") (emphasis added). And on this issue, Schulte contends that the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from White Plains \"deviated from the established, court-tested, and constitutional practice of indicting defendants in the division in which the offenses allegedly occurred and in which the case will be tried.\" (Schulte Br. at 2.) This argument must be rejected for two reasons.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the Court finds no persuasive or binding authority that supports the premise that the Government must indict defendants in the same courthouse as where the trial is scheduled to",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002832",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Schulte"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eastern District",
      "Nassau",
      "Suffolk",
      "Uniondale",
      "Manhattan",
      "White Plains"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 2:17-cr-00365-JMA",
      "Document 1859",
      "68 F.3d at 24",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002832"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is page 11 of a 20-page document."
}