DOJ-OGR-00002824.jpg
769 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (order/opinion regarding motion to dismiss)
File Size:
769 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a court filing (likely an opinion or order) in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). It discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss his indictment regarding the alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. Schulte argues that the White Plains grand jury venire violated his constitutional rights by failing to represent a fair cross-section of African American and Hispanic American populations. Note: While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' the text exclusively concerns Joshua Schulte; however, this document may be part of a larger FOIA production covering SDNY cases or MCC New York issues.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Moving to dismiss the indictment based on jury selection demographics; charged with transmitting national defense info.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
Sought and obtained superseding indictment; opposing Schulte's motion.
|
|
| WikiLeaks |
Entity to which Schulte allegedly transmitted national defense information.
|
|
| United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
The jurisdiction where the case is being heard (implied by 'Southern District of New York' in the footer context).
|
Timeline (2 events)
June 8, 2020
Government sought and obtained a third superseding Indictment.
White Plains courthouse
Government
Grand Jury (White Plains)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the grand jury sat and returned the superseding indictment.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in the citation for the Amended Plan.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The Indictment charges Schulte with nine criminal counts relating to his alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002824.jpg
Quote #1
"He primarily contends that the White Plains grand jury venire... did not reflect a fair cross-section of the African American and Hispanic American populations in the community."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002824.jpg
Quote #2
"Schulte argues that the Government’s decision to seek the Indictment from White Plains was improperly made."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002824.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,062 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 459 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 20
trials were not spared. See id. On June 8, 2020, however, the Government sought and obtained a
third superseding Indictment from a grand jury sitting in the District’s White Plains courthouse.
(Schulte Br. at 2; Gov’t Opp. Br. at 2.) The Indictment charges Schulte with nine criminal
counts relating to his alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. (ECF
405.) According to the Government, the White Plains grand jury that returned the superseding
Indictment was the sole grand jury empaneled at the time. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 14.)
third superseding Indictment from a grand jury sitting in the District’s White Plains courthouse.
(Schulte Br. at 2; Gov’t Opp. Br. at 2.) The Indictment charges Schulte with nine criminal
counts relating to his alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. (ECF
405.) According to the Government, the White Plains grand jury that returned the superseding
Indictment was the sole grand jury empaneled at the time. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 14.)
II. Motion to Dismiss
Schulte now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the grounds that it was unlawfully
obtained in violation of (1) the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause; (2) the Sixth
Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement; and (3) the JSSA. (ECF 435.) He primarily
contends that the White Plains grand jury venire—from which the Indictment was obtained—did
not reflect a fair cross-section of the African American and Hispanic American populations in
the community. And he contends that these effects are symptomatic of the exclusionary
processes that are inherent in the District’s jury selection system. Relatedly, Schulte argues that
the Government’s decision to seek the Indictment from White Plains was improperly made.
obtained in violation of (1) the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause; (2) the Sixth
Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement; and (3) the JSSA. (ECF 435.) He primarily
contends that the White Plains grand jury venire—from which the Indictment was obtained—did
not reflect a fair cross-section of the African American and Hispanic American populations in
the community. And he contends that these effects are symptomatic of the exclusionary
processes that are inherent in the District’s jury selection system. Relatedly, Schulte argues that
the Government’s decision to seek the Indictment from White Plains was improperly made.
III. The District’s Jury Plan
To understand Schulte’s claims, it is necessary to orient ourselves to some background
knowledge of the District’s jury selection process. Under the JSSA, each federal district court
must “devise and place in operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit
jurors.” 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). The District’s jury selection plan (“Jury Plan”), which has been in
existence since 2009, provides the blueprint for the random selection of grand and petit jurors
throughout the District. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter “Jury
knowledge of the District’s jury selection process. Under the JSSA, each federal district court
must “devise and place in operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit
jurors.” 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). The District’s jury selection plan (“Jury Plan”), which has been in
existence since 2009, provides the blueprint for the random selection of grand and petit jurors
throughout the District. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter “Jury
3
DOJ-OGR-00002824
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document