DOJ-OGR-00002328(1).jpg
700 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
700 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It contends that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals in the jury selected from White Plains. The document cites the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in *Duren v. Missouri* to support the claim of a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The document argues that her Sixth Amendment right was violated due to the jury selection process.
|
| Duren | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case name Duren v. Missouri, which established a three-element test for fair cross-section violations.
|
| Jackman | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. Jackman, cited as precedent.
|
| Rioux | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. Rioux, cited as precedent.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Government agency |
Cited as having set forth the three elements for a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement in Dur...
|
Timeline (2 events)
A jury selection process in White Plains that is alleged to have resulted in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons, violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right.
White Plains
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the jury was selected, which allegedly resulted in the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic p...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name Duren v. Missouri.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines Ms. Maxwell's legal claim against the government's jury selection process, stating that once a prima facie showing is made, 'the government bears the burden of showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest.'
Key Quotes (1)
"the district or division where the trial is to be held."Source
— United States v. Rioux (implied)
(Provided as the widely understood definition of 'community' for a fair cross-section analysis, which was not defined in the Duren case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002328(1).jpg
Quote #1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document