mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003163.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "229",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 229 of 239\n\nBecause the defendant has no right to insist that either the grand or petit jury be drawn from any particular geographic area within the Southern District, she is wrong to assert that her fair cross-section claim must be analyzed against the geographic location in which the offense was committed or the trial is expected to occur. Rather, \"[w]here 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.\" Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added). Here, consistent with the SDNY Grand Jury Plan, the venire for the grand jury that indicted the defendant was drawn from the voter lists of the following counties: Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Sullivan, and Dutchess. That is undoubtedly a \"properly designated division\" pursuant to the JSSA. As noted, the Southern District is not divided into \"divisions\" by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). For purposes of the JSSA, district courts in such undivided districts have the authority to determine \"divisions\" comprised of \"counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e). Accordingly, while the SDNY Jury Plan neither creates nor ever uses the term \"White Plains Division\" or \"Manhattan Division,\" it contemplates Master Jury Wheels drawn from two geographic areas that satisfy the definition of \"division\" under the JSSA. Thus, in evaluating the defendant's fair cross-section claim, this Court must \"look to that division\"—the counties from which the White Plains Master Wheel is drawn—to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\" Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added).\n\nIn the face of this authority, the defendant cites only two district court cases for the proposition that \"community\" for purposes of a fair cross-section claim is \"widely understood to mean the district or division where the trial will be held.\" (Def. Mot. 9 at 5 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Not only is the authority cited non-binding, but\n\n202\nDOJ-OGR-00003163",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 229 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because the defendant has no right to insist that either the grand or petit jury be drawn from any particular geographic area within the Southern District, she is wrong to assert that her fair cross-section claim must be analyzed against the geographic location in which the offense was committed or the trial is expected to occur. Rather, \"[w]here 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.\" Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added). Here, consistent with the SDNY Grand Jury Plan, the venire for the grand jury that indicted the defendant was drawn from the voter lists of the following counties: Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Sullivan, and Dutchess. That is undoubtedly a \"properly designated division\" pursuant to the JSSA. As noted, the Southern District is not divided into \"divisions\" by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). For purposes of the JSSA, district courts in such undivided districts have the authority to determine \"divisions\" comprised of \"counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e). Accordingly, while the SDNY Jury Plan neither creates nor ever uses the term \"White Plains Division\" or \"Manhattan Division,\" it contemplates Master Jury Wheels drawn from two geographic areas that satisfy the definition of \"division\" under the JSSA. Thus, in evaluating the defendant's fair cross-section claim, this Court must \"look to that division\"—the counties from which the White Plains Master Wheel is drawn—to see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.\" Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24 (emphasis added).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the face of this authority, the defendant cites only two district court cases for the proposition that \"community\" for purposes of a fair cross-section claim is \"widely understood to mean the district or division where the trial will be held.\" (Def. Mot. 9 at 5 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Not only is the authority cited non-binding, but",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "202",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003163",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District",
      "Westchester",
      "Putnam",
      "Rockland",
      "Orange",
      "Sullivan",
      "Dutchess",
      "White Plains",
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "28 U.S.C. § 112(b)",
      "28 U.S.C. § 1869(e)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003163"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is from the Southern District court and discusses jury selection and fair cross-section claims."
}