mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003768.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "211",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 11\n\nThe government thus raises only two points of dispute. First, it claims that even though the offenses in the Superseding Indictment (\"Indictment\") are alleged to have occurred in Manhattan (to the extent they occurred in the Southern District at all), and even though the case has been assigned to and will be tried in this Court, the appropriate comparison population for purposes of the second Duren prong is the eligible juror population of the White Plains Counties, rather than that of either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District as a whole. Second, the government argues that Ms. Maxwell has not satisfied the third Duren prong because any underrepresentation was not the result of systematic exclusion, even though the underrepresentation is attributable solely to the government's decision to indict Ms. Maxwell using a White Plains grand jury. Both arguments fail.\n\nI. The Relevant \"Community\" for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties or, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York.\n\nThe second prong of Duren asks whether a group's representation in the source from which juries are selected is \"fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community.\" Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. \"Although the Duren court did not clearly define the term 'community,' it is generally accepted that the term refers to the district or division where the trial is to be held.\" United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (\"the term refers to the district—or division, when a district has been so divided—where the trial is to be held\")\n\nWhile the government argues that those cases are inapposite because the grand jury and petit jury sat in the same courthouse, it cites no case that holds otherwise where the grand jury and petit jury sit in different courthouses—or any other case that holds that the relevant \"community\" for a grand jury is a community that excludes jurors from the county in which the trial is to be held (and in which the offense allegedly occurred). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1861,\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003768",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government thus raises only two points of dispute. First, it claims that even though the offenses in the Superseding Indictment (\"Indictment\") are alleged to have occurred in Manhattan (to the extent they occurred in the Southern District at all), and even though the case has been assigned to and will be tried in this Court, the appropriate comparison population for purposes of the second Duren prong is the eligible juror population of the White Plains Counties, rather than that of either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District as a whole. Second, the government argues that Ms. Maxwell has not satisfied the third Duren prong because any underrepresentation was not the result of systematic exclusion, even though the underrepresentation is attributable solely to the government's decision to indict Ms. Maxwell using a White Plains grand jury. Both arguments fail.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Relevant \"Community\" for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties or, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second prong of Duren asks whether a group's representation in the source from which juries are selected is \"fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community.\" Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. \"Although the Duren court did not clearly define the term 'community,' it is generally accepted that the term refers to the district or division where the trial is to be held.\" United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (\"the term refers to the district—or division, when a district has been so divided—where the trial is to be held\")",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "While the government argues that those cases are inapposite because the grand jury and petit jury sat in the same courthouse, it cites no case that holds otherwise where the grand jury and petit jury sit in different courthouses—or any other case that holds that the relevant \"community\" for a grand jury is a community that excludes jurors from the county in which the trial is to be held (and in which the offense allegedly occurred). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1861,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003768",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan",
      "White Plains",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 211",
      "28 U.S.C. § 1861",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003768"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}