mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002821.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2 of 2",
    "document_number": "185",
    "date": "03/26/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 185 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 2\nPage 2\nIn particular, in assessing the defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, Judge Crotty found that: (1) the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel (Schulte Op. 8-9); (2) the relevant \"community\" is the White Plains voting age population (Schulte Op. 9-11); (3) it was entirely proper for the Government to seek an indictment in White Plains, despite the fact that the trial is likely to occur in Manhattan (Schulte Op. 11-13); and (4) the appropriate method of statistical comparison is the \"absolute disparity\" method (Schulte Op. 13-14). Judge Crotty therefore found that the defendant had not demonstrated substantial underrepresentation under the second prong of the standard set forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1974). (Schulte Op. 13-15). Judge Crotty further found that the defendant's claim failed on Duren's third prong, as well, because the defendant had not established that any underrepresentation was the product of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. (Schulte Op. 15-17).\nRespectfully submitted,\nAUDREY STRAUSS\nUnited States Attorney\nby: /s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2324\ncc: Counsel of Record (by ECF)",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 185 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In particular, in assessing the defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, Judge Crotty found that: (1) the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel (Schulte Op. 8-9); (2) the relevant \"community\" is the White Plains voting age population (Schulte Op. 9-11); (3) it was entirely proper for the Government to seek an indictment in White Plains, despite the fact that the trial is likely to occur in Manhattan (Schulte Op. 11-13); and (4) the appropriate method of statistical comparison is the \"absolute disparity\" method (Schulte Op. 13-14). Judge Crotty therefore found that the defendant had not demonstrated substantial underrepresentation under the second prong of the standard set forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1974). (Schulte Op. 13-15). Judge Crotty further found that the defendant's claim failed on Duren's third prong, as well, because the defendant had not established that any underrepresentation was the product of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. (Schulte Op. 15-17).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "AUDREY STRAUSS\nUnited States Attorney",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "/s/",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2324",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF)",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Crotty",
      "Duren",
      "Missouri",
      "Audrey Strauss",
      "Maurene Comey",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "White Plains",
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/26/21",
      "1974"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 185",
      "439 U.S. 357"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}