mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003771.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "211",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "when the underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces.\" United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 658 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, Ms. Maxwell was not denied a fair cross-section by \"external forces,\" but by the government's deliberate and gratuitous conduct. As the government's expert admits, the White Plains jury pool is \"not [] representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic,\" Opp. Ex. 12 ¶ 11, yet the government needlessly used a White Plains grand jury anyway. That the government acknowledges having done so repeatedly during the COVID-19 pandemic only underscores the systematic nature of its conduct. Opp. 199 n.68; see also Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1241 (finding violation even in a discarded \"process that had inadvertently, but systematically, excluded from petit jury venires all residents of Hartford and New Britain, communities with large minority populations\").\n\nThe government's reliance on United States v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F.App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012), is misplaced. In Barlow, the defendant argued that the court's facially neutral practices with respect to the disqualification of jurors charged with or convicted of felonies led to the erroneous exclusion of jurors, and that the erroneous exclusions disproportionately affected Black males. The court found that no significant underrepresentation occurred but also concluded that any such underrepresentation would not have amounted to systematic exclusion, noting that \"systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group.\" Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40. Notably, the court distinguished Jackman on factors directly relevant here, observing that the case before it was not \"a case like Jackman where the underrepresentation occurred because the jury clerk relied on a jury wheel knowing that the wheel omitted large segments of the division's minority population.\" Id. at 42. This case, however, is \"like",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "when the underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces.\" United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 658 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, Ms. Maxwell was not denied a fair cross-section by \"external forces,\" but by the government's deliberate and gratuitous conduct. As the government's expert admits, the White Plains jury pool is \"not [] representative of the Manhattan or the Southern District community with respect to the percent African American and Hispanic,\" Opp. Ex. 12 ¶ 11, yet the government needlessly used a White Plains grand jury anyway. That the government acknowledges having done so repeatedly during the COVID-19 pandemic only underscores the systematic nature of its conduct. Opp. 199 n.68; see also Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1241 (finding violation even in a discarded \"process that had inadvertently, but systematically, excluded from petit jury venires all residents of Hartford and New Britain, communities with large minority populations\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's reliance on United States v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F.App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012), is misplaced. In Barlow, the defendant argued that the court's facially neutral practices with respect to the disqualification of jurors charged with or convicted of felonies led to the erroneous exclusion of jurors, and that the erroneous exclusions disproportionately affected Black males. The court found that no significant underrepresentation occurred but also concluded that any such underrepresentation would not have amounted to systematic exclusion, noting that \"systematic exclusion does not occur simply because a facially neutral disqualification criterion disproportionately impacts a particular group.\" Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 40. Notably, the court distinguished Jackman on factors directly relevant here, observing that the case before it was not \"a case like Jackman where the underrepresentation occurred because the jury clerk relied on a jury wheel knowing that the wheel omitted large segments of the division's minority population.\" Id. at 42. This case, however, is \"like",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003771",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan",
      "Southern District",
      "White Plains",
      "Hartford",
      "New Britain",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1996",
      "2010",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 211",
      "Opp. Ex. 12 ¶ 11",
      "Opp. 199 n.68",
      "46 F.3d at 1241",
      "732 F. Supp. 2d 1",
      "479 F.App'x 372",
      "Id. at 42"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the issue of jury selection and representation. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}