mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003166.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "232",
    "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 232 of 239\n\nIn sum, the decision to indict the defendant in White Plains was entirely proper, and the lack of any constitutional or statutory basis for the defendant's contrary argument is fatal to her fair cross-section claims, as described below.\n\n2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless\n\nThe defendant's fair cross-section claim is based on the assertion that Black or African-American and Hispanic or Latino individuals are unfairly underrepresented in the relevant jury pool. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5). While these are \"distinctive\" groups, satisfying Duren's first prong, the defendant's claim fails on each of the other two prongs.\n\na. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Represented\n\nThe second prong of the Duren test requires the Court to determine whether representation of either or both of the \"distinctive\" groups in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community. Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. This requires determining the relevant comparators-i.e., what is the \"relevant jury pool\" and what is the community \"population\" against which it is compared-as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656.\n\nHere, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth below, the defendant's claim fails even using the White Plains Qualified Wheel.\n\n\"Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the 'relevant jury pool' with any specificity.\" United States v. Rioux 930 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (D. Conn. 1995). In a detailed survey of the case law, the district court in Rioux found that cases have examined different relevant pools, including the master wheel, the qualified wheel over a period of time, the venires\n\n205\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003166",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 232 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, the decision to indict the defendant in White Plains was entirely proper, and the lack of any constitutional or statutory basis for the defendant's contrary argument is fatal to her fair cross-section claims, as described below.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's fair cross-section claim is based on the assertion that Black or African-American and Hispanic or Latino individuals are unfairly underrepresented in the relevant jury pool. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5). While these are \"distinctive\" groups, satisfying Duren's first prong, the defendant's claim fails on each of the other two prongs.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Represented",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second prong of the Duren test requires the Court to determine whether representation of either or both of the \"distinctive\" groups in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community. Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. This requires determining the relevant comparators-i.e., what is the \"relevant jury pool\" and what is the community \"population\" against which it is compared-as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth below, the defendant's claim fails even using the White Plains Qualified Wheel.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the 'relevant jury pool' with any specificity.\" United States v. Rioux 930 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (D. Conn. 1995). In a detailed survey of the case law, the district court in Rioux found that cases have examined different relevant pools, including the master wheel, the qualified wheel over a period of time, the venires",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "205",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003166",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "White Plains",
      "D. Conn."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003166"
    ]
  },
  "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 page 232 of 239."
}