DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
805 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
6
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order (page 12 of 20)
File Size:
805 KB
Summary
This document is page 12 of a court filing (Document 859) dated March 24, 2021, from a criminal case involving a defendant named Schulte (likely Joshua Schulte, though found in a DOJ release). The text outlines the court's rejection of the defendant's arguments regarding venue impropriety, affirming that it is constitutional to indict in one courthouse (White Plains) and try in another (Manhattan) within the same district. The court cites the COVID-19 pandemic delays in Summer 2020 as further justification for the procedural flexibility.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
The court is addressing 'Schulte's allegations' regarding venue impropriety.
|
| Plaza-Andrades | Case Citation Defendant |
Cited in United States v. Plaza-Andrades regarding Sixth Amendment venue rights.
|
| Bahna | Case Citation Defendant |
Cited regarding jury constitution.
|
| Ruthenberg | Case Citation Defendant |
Cited in Ruthenberg v. United States.
|
| Fernandez | Case Citation Defendant |
Cited in United States v. Fernandez regarding venue in the Eastern District of New York.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited as '2d Cir.' in case law references.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced as arguing points in 'Gov't Opp. Br.'
|
Locations (6)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where grand juries often sit.
|
|
|
Location where cases are often tried.
|
|
|
Mentioned in Fernandez citation.
|
|
|
Mentioned in Fernandez citation.
|
|
|
Mentioned in Fernandez citation as headquarters of the Eastern District.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in Fernandez citation.
|
Relationships (1)
Court addressing Schulte's allegations against Government practices.
Key Quotes (4)
"Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
Quote #1
"it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan courthouse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
Quote #2
"that practice was especially justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other in-person proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
Quote #3
"the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte’s allegations"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 20
occur. Instead, it is well established in this circuit that the “Sixth Amendment does not entitle a
defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the
offense was allegedly committed,” United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App’x 22, 26 (2d
Cir. 2013), and that a “jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the
whole district,” Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918).
It should come as no surprise then that a defendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried
in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.6 See
Andrades, 507 F. App’x at 26; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 18 (stating that “the government must
prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”); cf. United States v.
Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) (“[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was
convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau
County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the
headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements.”).
defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the
offense was allegedly committed,” United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App’x 22, 26 (2d
Cir. 2013), and that a “jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the
whole district,” Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918).
It should come as no surprise then that a defendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried
in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.6 See
Andrades, 507 F. App’x at 26; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 18 (stating that “the government must
prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”); cf. United States v.
Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) (“[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was
convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau
County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the
headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements.”).
Second, the prevalence of this practice as well as the compelling justification for it in this
case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, “it is common for cases
to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan
courthouse.” (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially
justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other in-
person proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2–3. Thus, in
considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte’s allegations that
case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, “it is common for cases
to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan
courthouse.” (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially
justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other in-
person proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2–3. Thus, in
considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte’s allegations that
6 Because this case concerns the grand jury phase of criminal proceedings, the principles
espoused in past precedents endorsing a flexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply
a fortiori in the grand jury context.
espoused in past precedents endorsing a flexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply
a fortiori in the grand jury context.
12
DOJ-OGR-00002833
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document