mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003162.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "228",
    "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 228 of 239\ncourthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selecting the jury from the “Long Island Division” wheel because there was under-representation of Blacks and Hispanics in that “division” as compared to the Eastern District as a whole. Id. at 23-24. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, finding that it “[wa]s based upon an improper premise.” Id. at 24. Contrary to the defendant’s claims, “[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.” Id. (emphasis added).\nConsistent with Bahna, courts have repeatedly found that defendants in criminal cases have no constitutional or statutory right to a jury drawn from the entire district or from a particular geographic area within a district, such as the county or “division” where the offense was committed. See, e.g., Rutenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 482 (1918) (rejecting claim that defendant had Sixth Amendment right to jury drawn from entire district); United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 659 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Th[e] [Sixth] Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury ‘of the State and district’ in which the crime was committed does not require a narrower geographical focus than the district itself.”); United States v. Richardson, 537 F.3d 951, 959 (8th Cir. 2008) (a criminal defendant “does not have a right to have his trial in or jurors summoned from a particular division of the state and district where the crime was committed”); United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that “[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district”); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed or from the entire district which includes that division.”); United States v. Florence, 456 F.2d 46, 49-50 (4th Cir. 1972) (holding that a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to a jury selected from the entire district or from a particular division).\n201\nDOJ-OGR-00003162",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 228 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selecting the jury from the “Long Island Division” wheel because there was under-representation of Blacks and Hispanics in that “division” as compared to the Eastern District as a whole. Id. at 23-24. The Second Circuit rejected the argument, finding that it “[wa]s based upon an improper premise.” Id. at 24. Contrary to the defendant’s claims, “[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.” Id. (emphasis added).\nConsistent with Bahna, courts have repeatedly found that defendants in criminal cases have no constitutional or statutory right to a jury drawn from the entire district or from a particular geographic area within a district, such as the county or “division” where the offense was committed. See, e.g., Rutenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 482 (1918) (rejecting claim that defendant had Sixth Amendment right to jury drawn from entire district); United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 659 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Th[e] [Sixth] Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury ‘of the State and district’ in which the crime was committed does not require a narrower geographical focus than the district itself.”); United States v. Richardson, 537 F.3d 951, 959 (8th Cir. 2008) (a criminal defendant “does not have a right to have his trial in or jurors summoned from a particular division of the state and district where the crime was committed”); United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that “[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district”); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed or from the entire district which includes that division.”); United States v. Florence, 456 F.2d 46, 49-50 (4th Cir. 1972) (holding that a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to a jury selected from the entire district or from a particular division).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "201",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003162",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Nassau",
      "Suffolk",
      "Long Island",
      "Eastern District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1918",
      "1997",
      "2008",
      "1983",
      "1980",
      "1972"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003162"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}