DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 589) filed on March 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments that the Jury Plan systematically excludes African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The Court rules that factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of people moving residences, and the use of voter registration lists do not constitute constitutional violations under the Sixth or Fifth Amendments.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant/Appellant |
Arguing that the Jury Plan systematically excludes certain demographic groups.
|
| Rioux | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation (Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658).
|
| Schanbarger | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding voter registration lists.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
The entity issuing the opinion and rejecting Schulte's arguments.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Referenced as binding precedent (Second Circuit’s decision in Schanbarger).
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR' (Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Recurring every 4 years
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Specific location mentioned regarding the exclusion of 'inactive voters' in certain counties.
|
|
|
Refers to the judicial district where the proceedings are taking place.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"the true cause of the exclusion—younger people moving more often—is an external force, not a systematic defect inherent in the Jury Plan."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
Quote #1
"At bottom, the Court cannot charge the District’s Jury Plan with a Sixth Amendment violation because of how often people move residences throughout the District."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
Quote #2
"“[A] jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal protection.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,038 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 589 Filed 03/24/21 Page 16 of 20
proceeded this way was because of an external force: the COVID-19 pandemic and its
substantial curtailment of in-person proceedings throughout the District. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658.
This allegation therefore does not establish systematic exclusion.
substantial curtailment of in-person proceedings throughout the District. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658.
This allegation therefore does not establish systematic exclusion.
Second, Schulte argues that the Jury Plan’s replenishment of the master wheels only once
every four years constitutes systematic exclusion. (Schulte Br. at 14.) According to Schulte, the
four-year period causes addresses to grow “stale” as people move to new residences, and because
African Americans and Hispanic Americans are, on average, younger and thus more likely to
move, he argues that these groups are systematically excluded. (See id. 14–15.) But even
granting the dubious premises that make up this deductive reasoning, the Court remains
unpersuaded because, again, the true cause of the exclusion—younger people moving more
often—is an external force, not a systematic defect inherent in the Jury Plan. Rioux, 97 F.3d at
658 (concluding that a jury system that led to undeliverable questionnaires did not constitute
systematic exclusion). At bottom, the Court cannot charge the District’s Jury Plan with a Sixth
Amendment violation because of how often people move residences throughout the District.
every four years constitutes systematic exclusion. (Schulte Br. at 14.) According to Schulte, the
four-year period causes addresses to grow “stale” as people move to new residences, and because
African Americans and Hispanic Americans are, on average, younger and thus more likely to
move, he argues that these groups are systematically excluded. (See id. 14–15.) But even
granting the dubious premises that make up this deductive reasoning, the Court remains
unpersuaded because, again, the true cause of the exclusion—younger people moving more
often—is an external force, not a systematic defect inherent in the Jury Plan. Rioux, 97 F.3d at
658 (concluding that a jury system that led to undeliverable questionnaires did not constitute
systematic exclusion). At bottom, the Court cannot charge the District’s Jury Plan with a Sixth
Amendment violation because of how often people move residences throughout the District.
Third, Schulte asserts that the Jury Plan’s exclusive reliance on voter registration lists
constitutes systematic exclusion. This claim, however, is foreclosed by the Second Circuit’s
decision in Schanbarger. See 77 F.3d at 1424 (“[A] jury venire drawn from voter registration
lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantee of Equal protection.”).
constitutes systematic exclusion. This claim, however, is foreclosed by the Second Circuit’s
decision in Schanbarger. See 77 F.3d at 1424 (“[A] jury venire drawn from voter registration
lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantee of Equal protection.”).
Finally, Schulte alleges that the exclusion of “inactive voters” in certain counties within
White Plains constitutes systematic exclusion because African Americans and Hispanic
Americans are more likely to be inactive voters. (Schulte Br. at 15.) But again, the cause of the
White Plains constitutes systematic exclusion because African Americans and Hispanic
Americans are more likely to be inactive voters. (Schulte Br. at 15.) But again, the cause of the
16
DOJ-OGR-00002837
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document