DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
11
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant whose allegations of systematic exclusion and arguments about the relevant community for j...
|
| Rioux |
Mentioned in a case citation (Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565–66) regarding the definition of a relevant jury pool.
|
|
| Allen |
Mentioned in a case citation (Allen, 2021 WL 431458) regarding the definition of a jury pool.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case, responding to Schulte's arguments about the relevant community for jury selection.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The entity making the ruling, mentioned as agreeing with the Government's position.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Discussion of the jury selection process for Schulte's trial, specifically defining the 'relevant community' from which jurors are drawn.
Manhattan
Locations (11)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in the context of the "White Plains master wheel" and "White Plains qualified wheel" for jury selection.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location where Schulte's trial will be held.
|
|
|
The judicial district where the case is being heard, which is not statutorily divided into discrete divisions.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
|
|
Listed as one of the counties composing the Southern District.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines their opposing arguments in a legal case regarding the composition of the jury pool, with Schulte as the defendant and the Government as the opposing party.
Key Quotes (2)
"the systematic defect identified by the defendant."Source
— Rioux case citation
(Used to define how the relevant jury pool has been determined in prior circuit cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
Quote #1
"the White Plains master wheel and the White Plains qualified wheel"Source
— Allen case citation
(Used to define the jury pool in a cited case where allegations impacted both venires (jury panels).)
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,023 characters)
Case 20-17-00385-APAC Document 859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 20
circuit have defined the relevant jury pool with reference to “the systematic defect identified by the defendant.” Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565–66; see Allen, 2021 WL 431458, *5 (defining jury pool as both “the White Plains master wheel and the White Plains qualified wheel” because the defendants’ allegations impacted both venires). Under that approach, the jury venire that bears the brunt of the defendant’s allegations of systematic exclusion is determined to be the relevant jury pool. See Allen, 2021 WL 431458, *5; Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565–66. Here, Schulte’s allegations of systematic exclusion center almost entirely on the juror selection procedures for the White Plains master wheel.4 See infra 15–17. Accordingly, the appropriate venire is the White Plains master wheel.
ii. Relevant Community
The most significant point of dispute between the parties is which counties constitute the relevant community. According to Schulte, the relevant community must be the counties that feed jurors to Manhattan because that is where his trial will be held. (Schulte Br. at 8; Schulte Reply at 3–5, ECF 454.) But the Government responds that the northern counties from which White Plains draws jurors represent the relevant community. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 9–14, 18.) The Court agrees with the Government.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the Southern District is not statutorily divided into discrete divisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. Rather, the statutory law prescribes one District that is composed of the following counties: Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester. See id. Yet, what the statutory law leaves
4 For example, if Schulte had alleged that the juror questionnaire form displayed systematic exclusion, see supra 4 n. 1, then the qualified wheel would be the appropriate jury venire for comparison. Because he does not do that, the master wheel must be the relevant venire.
9
DOJ-OGR-00002830
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document