{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "Case 1:17-cr-00533-JAE Document 1359 Filed 03/23/21 Page 19 of 20",
    "date": "03/23/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "from the counties that overlap both courthouses; and (4) the clerical error by which voters who had registered with an alternate mailing address were excluded from jury selection. (Schulte Br. at 19 - 22; Schulte Reply at 11-15.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these allegations do not offend the JSSA.\n\nThe Government's Decision. The Government's appropriate decision to seek the Indictment in White Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA, and customary practice. See supra 11-13. Accordingly, this prosecutorial decision cannot be said to contravene the JSSA.\n\nExclusion of Inactive Voters. In United States v. Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *10, Judge Roman addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties used by White Plains violated the JSSA. See id. Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not, reasoning that it is \"entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have since moved,\" see id., and even if it did, that the defect was merely a \"technical violation\" of the JSSA. Id. Because the Court agrees with this reasoning on all counts, it concludes that the exclusion of inactive voters here does not violate the JSSA.\n\nErroneous Proration & Alternate Mailing Address. Lastly, Schulte argues that prospective jurors from the overlapping counties of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland were incorrectly prorated between the two courthouses, and that a technical glitch inadvertently excluded jurors who had registered to vote with alternate mailing addresses. (Schulte Br. at 21-22; Schulte Reply at 13-14.) The Court is unpersuaded. As to the former contention, Schulte does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a \"substantial\" violation of the JSSA, especially where its \"effect\" appears to be \"minimal.\" Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting the same argument on the basis that it was merely a \"technical violation of the JSSA\"). As to the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "from the counties that overlap both courthouses; and (4) the clerical error by which voters who had registered with an alternate mailing address were excluded from jury selection. (Schulte Br. at 19 - 22; Schulte Reply at 11-15.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these allegations do not offend the JSSA.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government's Decision. The Government's appropriate decision to seek the Indictment in White Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA, and customary practice. See supra 11-13. Accordingly, this prosecutorial decision cannot be said to contravene the JSSA.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Exclusion of Inactive Voters. In United States v. Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *10, Judge Roman addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties used by White Plains violated the JSSA. See id. Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not, reasoning that it is \"entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have since moved,\" see id., and even if it did, that the defect was merely a \"technical violation\" of the JSSA. Id. Because the Court agrees with this reasoning on all counts, it concludes that the exclusion of inactive voters here does not violate the JSSA.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Erroneous Proration & Alternate Mailing Address. Lastly, Schulte argues that prospective jurors from the overlapping counties of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland were incorrectly prorated between the two courthouses, and that a technical glitch inadvertently excluded jurors who had registered to vote with alternate mailing addresses. (Schulte Br. at 21-22; Schulte Reply at 13-14.) The Court is unpersuaded. As to the former contention, Schulte does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a \"substantial\" violation of the JSSA, especially where its \"effect\" appears to be \"minimal.\" Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting the same argument on the basis that it was merely a \"technical violation of the JSSA\"). As to the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002840",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Schulte",
      "Judge Roman",
      "Allen"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "White Plains",
      "Westchester",
      "Putnam",
      "Rockland"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:17-cr-00533-JAE",
      "Document 1359",
      "2021 WL 431458"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}