DOJ-OGR-00002840.jpg
769 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing / judicial opinion
File Size:
769 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a court filing (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC) filed on March 24, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Schulte. The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments concerning violations of the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA), specifically regarding the exclusion of inactive voters and the proration of jurors from Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties. The Court cites precedent from *United States v. Allen* and Judge Roman to validate the Government's decision to indict in White Plains.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Arguing against the jury selection process and indictment location; references to 'Schulte Br.' (Brief) and 'Schulte ...
|
| Judge Roman | Judge |
Cited as precedent from the case United States v. Allen regarding jury selection rulings.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Issuing the opinion/ruling.
|
|
| The Government |
Defending the decision to indict in White Plains.
|
|
| DOJ |
Referenced in Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-03-24
Filing of Document 185-1 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC.
Court (Southern District of NY implied via White Plains)
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the indictment was sought and courthouse location.
|
|
|
County overlapping courthouses.
|
|
|
County overlapping courthouses.
|
|
|
County overlapping courthouses.
|
Relationships (2)
Schulte arguing against Government's indictment location and jury selection.
The Court cites Judge Roman's ruling in US v. Allen to support its decision.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government’s appropriate decision to seek the Indictment in White Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA, and customary practice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002840.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not, reasoning that it is “entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have since moved,”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002840.jpg
Quote #2
"Schulte does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a “substantial” violation of the JSSA, especially where its “effect” appears to be “minimal.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002840.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,082 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 185-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 19 of 20
from the counties that overlap both courthouses; and (4) the clerical error by which voters who had registered with an alternate mailing address were excluded from jury selection. (Schulte Br. at 19 – 22; Schulte Reply at 11–15.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these allegations do not offend the JSSA.
The Government’s Decision. The Government’s appropriate decision to seek the Indictment in White Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA, and customary practice. See supra 11–13. Accordingly, this prosecutorial decision cannot be said to contravene the JSSA.
Exclusion of Inactive Voters. In United States v. Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *10, Judge Roman addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties used by White Plains violated the JSSA. See id. Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not, reasoning that it is “entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have since moved,” see id., and even if it did, that the defect was merely a “technical violation” of the JSSA. Id. Because the Court agrees with this reasoning on all counts, it concludes that the exclusion of inactive voters here does not violate the JSSA.
Erroneous Proration & Alternate Mailing Address. Lastly, Schulte argues that prospective jurors from the overlapping counties of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland were incorrectly prorated between the two courthouses, and that a technical glitch inadvertently excluded jurors who had registered to vote with alternate mailing addresses. (Schulte Br. at 21– 22; Schulte Reply at 13–14.) The Court is unpersuaded. As to the former contention, Schulte does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a “substantial” violation of the JSSA, especially where its “effect” appears to be “minimal.” Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting the same argument on the basis that it was merely a “technical violation of the JSSA”). As to the
19
DOJ-OGR-00002840
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document