mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002328.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 13\n\nsection protection does not apply to grand juries). Here, the use of a White Plains jury resulted in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons from the jury selection process, in violation of Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right.\n\nIn Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court set forth the three elements that must be shown to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: (i) that the group alleged to be excluded is a \"distinctive\" group in the community; (ii) that the representation of the group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (iii) that the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the government bears the burden of showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest. Id. at 368.\n\nWith respect to the first element, there can be no serious dispute that Blacks and Hispanics are \"distinctive\" groups in the community. A claim of underrepresentation of those groups thus satisfies the first element of a fair cross-section claim. United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1246 (2d Cir. 1995).\n\nIn considering the second element—whether the representation of the group is fair and reasonable—the Court must determine \"whether either or both of these two 'distinctive' groups are 'significant[ly] underrepresent[ed]' in the jury selection process.\" Id. As constituted, the qualified jury wheels are a proper measure for evaluating the degree of underrepresentation as compared to the relevant community. United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 655-56 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\nWhile Duren did not define which community is relevant for a fair cross-section analysis, it is widely understood to mean \"the district or division where the trial is to be held.\" United",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 126 Filed 01/25/21 Page 8 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "section protection does not apply to grand juries). Here, the use of a White Plains jury resulted in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons from the jury selection process, in violation of Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court set forth the three elements that must be shown to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: (i) that the group alleged to be excluded is a \"distinctive\" group in the community; (ii) that the representation of the group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (iii) that the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the government bears the burden of showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest. Id. at 368.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "With respect to the first element, there can be no serious dispute that Blacks and Hispanics are \"distinctive\" groups in the community. A claim of underrepresentation of those groups thus satisfies the first element of a fair cross-section claim. United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1246 (2d Cir. 1995).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In considering the second element—whether the representation of the group is fair and reasonable—the Court must determine \"whether either or both of these two 'distinctive' groups are 'significant[ly] underrepresent[ed]' in the jury selection process.\" Id. As constituted, the qualified jury wheels are a proper measure for evaluating the degree of underrepresentation as compared to the relevant community. United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 655-56 (2d Cir. 1996).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "While Duren did not define which community is relevant for a fair cross-section analysis, it is widely understood to mean \"the district or division where the trial is to be held.\" United",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002328",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "White Plains",
      "Missouri"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21",
      "1979",
      "1995",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 126",
      "439 U.S. 357",
      "46 F.3d 1240",
      "97 F.3d 648",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002328"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a fair cross-section claim in a jury selection process. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing."
}