mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003624.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "204-12",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-12 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 30\njury wheel, I was able to identify and measure the various causes of the absolute disparity between the community and the qualified jury wheel.\n6. The first step in the process of analyzing the qualified jury wheel is to re-create the master jury wheel. The master jury wheel is supposed to be a simple random selection from the voter registration lists. The master jury wheel was chosen from the November 1, 2016 county voter registration lists. Based on geocoding the master jury wheel, I was able to estimate that a proper random sample from the complete November 1, 2016 voter registration lists would have been 11.88% African American and 13.79% Hispanic. Hence, if a simple random sample had been selected, the absolute difference between the African American percent in the master jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.57 percentage points, and the absolute difference between the Hispanic percent in the master jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.33 percentage points. Hence, the voter lists are a good representation of the community benchmarks for representation of African Americans and Hispanics\n7. As pointed out by defendant's expert Mr. Martin, the selection of the individuals on the master jury wheel was not a simple random sample from the November 1, 2016 voter registration lists. That is, all registered voters did not have an equal chance of selection. There were two reasons for this. One, registered voters from the counties which provided jurors to both the Manhattan and White Plains master jury wheels were less likely to be selected than registered voters in counties which fed only the White Plains master jury wheel. Two, except for Dutchess County, inactive registered voters were not selected for the master jury wheel.1 These reasons were responsible for the actual master jury wheel being only 11.20% African American and\n1 The voter registration lists for all counties but Dutchess did not include inactive registered voters.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-12 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 30",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jury wheel, I was able to identify and measure the various causes of the absolute disparity between the community and the qualified jury wheel.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6. The first step in the process of analyzing the qualified jury wheel is to re-create the master jury wheel. The master jury wheel is supposed to be a simple random selection from the voter registration lists. The master jury wheel was chosen from the November 1, 2016 county voter registration lists. Based on geocoding the master jury wheel, I was able to estimate that a proper random sample from the complete November 1, 2016 voter registration lists would have been 11.88% African American and 13.79% Hispanic. Hence, if a simple random sample had been selected, the absolute difference between the African American percent in the master jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.57 percentage points, and the absolute difference between the Hispanic percent in the master jury wheel and the community would have been only 0.33 percentage points. Hence, the voter lists are a good representation of the community benchmarks for representation of African Americans and Hispanics",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7. As pointed out by defendant's expert Mr. Martin, the selection of the individuals on the master jury wheel was not a simple random sample from the November 1, 2016 voter registration lists. That is, all registered voters did not have an equal chance of selection. There were two reasons for this. One, registered voters from the counties which provided jurors to both the Manhattan and White Plains master jury wheels were less likely to be selected than registered voters in counties which fed only the White Plains master jury wheel. Two, except for Dutchess County, inactive registered voters were not selected for the master jury wheel.1 These reasons were responsible for the actual master jury wheel being only 11.20% African American and",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The voter registration lists for all counties but Dutchess did not include inactive registered voters.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003624",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Martin"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan",
      "White Plains",
      "Dutchess County"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 1, 2016",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-12",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003624"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving jury selection. The text discusses the process of analyzing the qualified jury wheel and the representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the master jury wheel. The document includes a footnote and a reference number at the bottom of the page."
}