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
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