DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
746 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing / judicial order or opinion
File Size:
746 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Document 189) in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC), filed on March 24, 2021. The text discusses a legal dispute regarding jury selection venues, specifically distinguishing the current case from *United States v. Johnson*. The court argues that unlike in *Johnson*, Schulte's grand and petit juries were drawn from different courthouses, invalidating his argument regarding the 'relevant community' for the jury pool. The document mentions the 'underrepresentation analysis' and the 'absolute disparity method' for assessing jury fairness. While comprised in a dataset potentially related to Epstein, the text explicitly concerns Joshua Schulte (likely the CIA Vault 7 case).
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Accused by Schulte of 'prosecutorial gamesmanship' and forum shopping.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Mentioned in footnote 7 as having binding authority (referencing Bahna).
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for U.S. v. Johnson.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-03-24
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Courthouse location discussed regarding where indictments were sought and where juries were drawn.
|
|
|
Refers to the judicial district (likely S.D.N.Y.) as a whole.
|
Relationships (1)
Legal arguments regarding indictment and jury selection methods.
Key Quotes (4)
"the Government had engaged in 'prosecutorial gamesmanship' and forum shopping by seeking the Indictment from White Plains."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
Quote #1
"Schulte's grand and petit juries derive from different courthouses in the District."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
Quote #2
"Schulte's reliance on Johnson is misplaced."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
Quote #3
"The 'primary approach used in this Circuit' is the absolute disparity method."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,075 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 189 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 20
the Government had engaged in “prosecutorial gamesmanship” and forum shopping by seeking
the Indictment from White Plains. Commonsense compels a contrary conclusion.
the Indictment from White Plains. Commonsense compels a contrary conclusion.
Finally, Schulte cites United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), for
the proposition that the relevant community is “widely understood to mean the ‘district or
division where the trial will be held.’” Id. at 334–35. The differing facts in Johnson, however,
make that case distinguishable from the case at bar.
the proposition that the relevant community is “widely understood to mean the ‘district or
division where the trial will be held.’” Id. at 334–35. The differing facts in Johnson, however,
make that case distinguishable from the case at bar.
In Johnson, the defendants moved to dismiss an indictment obtained from White Plains
on the ground that the fair cross-section requirement had been violated. Id. at 333. In assessing
that claim, the Johnson court defined the relevant community as White Plains because that was
“where the trial [was] to be held.” Id. at 335. The key fact there, however, was that the
defendants’ grand and petit juries were both drawn from White Plains, see id., which made it
only logical to conclude that the White Plains counties represented the relevant community. See
id. at 334–35. But the circumstances here are quite different; Schulte’s grand and petit juries
derive from different courthouses in the District. Accordingly, this factual distinction precludes
application of Johnson’s conclusion that the relevant community is “the district or division
where the trial is to be held.”7 See 21 F. Supp.2d at 334–35. Schulte’s reliance on Johnson is
misplaced.
on the ground that the fair cross-section requirement had been violated. Id. at 333. In assessing
that claim, the Johnson court defined the relevant community as White Plains because that was
“where the trial [was] to be held.” Id. at 335. The key fact there, however, was that the
defendants’ grand and petit juries were both drawn from White Plains, see id., which made it
only logical to conclude that the White Plains counties represented the relevant community. See
id. at 334–35. But the circumstances here are quite different; Schulte’s grand and petit juries
derive from different courthouses in the District. Accordingly, this factual distinction precludes
application of Johnson’s conclusion that the relevant community is “the district or division
where the trial is to be held.”7 See 21 F. Supp.2d at 334–35. Schulte’s reliance on Johnson is
misplaced.
iii. Underrepresentation Analysis
Having determined the relevant jury venire and community, the underrepresentation
analysis itself is clear-cut. The “primary approach used in this Circuit” is the absolute disparity
method. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 514 (examining case law); see Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at
analysis itself is clear-cut. The “primary approach used in this Circuit” is the absolute disparity
method. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 514 (examining case law); see Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at
_________________________________________________________________
7 Alternatively, even if Johnson is undistinguishable, the Court is bound to apply Bahna, which
bears directly on this case and is a holding of the Second Circuit.
7 Alternatively, even if Johnson is undistinguishable, the Court is bound to apply Bahna, which
bears directly on this case and is a holding of the Second Circuit.
13
DOJ-OGR-00002834
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document