DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
700 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
700 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text argues that the jury selection process in White Plains systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals, thereby violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section. The argument relies on the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Duren v. Missouri to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Subject of the legal argument |
Mentioned in the context of her Sixth Amendment right being violated due to the jury selection process.
|
| Duren | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the namesake of the legal precedent Duren v. Missouri.
|
| Jackman | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the legal precedent United States v. Jackman.
|
| Rioux | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the legal precedent United States v. Rioux.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Government agency |
Cited as having set forth the three elements for a prima facie violation in Duren v. Missouri.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal cases United States v. Jackman and United States v. Rioux.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-01-25
Document 126 in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN was filed.
A jury selection process in White Plains is described as resulting in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons, allegedly violating Ms. Maxwell's rights.
White Plains
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location where the jury was selected, which allegedly resulted in systematic underrepresentation.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name Duren v. Missouri.
|
Relationships (1)
This document is part of a legal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) where Ms. Maxwell's rights are being argued against the backdrop of government (court) actions, specifically the jury selection process. The government is mentioned as bearing the burden of proof if a prima facie case is made.
Key Quotes (3)
"distinctive"Source
— Legal precedent (Duren v. Missouri)
(Used to describe a group in the community as part of the first element of a fair cross-section claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
Quote #1
"significant[ly] underrepresent[ed]"Source
— The Court (as cited in the document)
(Part of the determination for the second element of a fair cross-section claim, regarding whether distinctive groups are underrepresented in the jury selection process.)
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
Quote #2
"the district or division where the trial is to be held."Source
— Legal understanding (as cited in the document)
(The widely understood definition of 'community' for a fair cross-section analysis, which was not explicitly defined in the Duren case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,050 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 126 Filed 01/25/21 Page 8 of 13
section protection does not apply to grand juries). Here, the use of a White Plains jury resulted in the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons from the jury selection process, in violation of Ms. Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right.
In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court set forth the three elements that must be shown to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: (i) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (ii) that the representation of the group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (iii) that the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the government bears the burden of showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest. Id. at 368.
With respect to the first element, there can be no serious dispute that Blacks and Hispanics are “distinctive” groups in the community. A claim of underrepresentation of those groups thus satisfies the first element of a fair cross-section claim. United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1246 (2d Cir. 1995).
In considering the second element—whether the representation of the group is fair and reasonable—the Court must determine “whether either or both of these two ‘distinctive’ groups are ‘significant[ly] underrepresent[ed]’ in the jury selection process.” Id. As constituted, the qualified jury wheels are a proper measure for evaluating the degree of underrepresentation as compared to the relevant community. United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 655-56 (2d Cir. 1996).
While Duren did not define which community is relevant for a fair cross-section analysis, it is widely understood to mean “the district or division where the trial is to be held.” United
5
DOJ-OGR-00002328
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document