Rioux
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002328(1).jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002323.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg
This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in the case United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of the defendant's (Schulte) challenges regarding jury selection, specifically concerning the 'fair cross-section' requirement of the Sixth Amendment and an 'Equal Protection' challenge under the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismisses arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors, citing a lack of discriminatory intent and noting that a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel actually increased minority representation rather than diminishing it.
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002836.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against a defendant named Schulte's challenge to the jury selection process. The argument asserts that Schulte fails to prove 'systematic exclusion' because the alleged underrepresentation of minority jurors was due to external factors, not the jury selection system itself, citing multiple legal precedents. Schulte's specific claim that the Government sought an indictment in White Plains to avoid the more diverse jury pool of Manhattan is presented as the core of his foreclosed allegation.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text details the court's analysis of Schulte's 'fair cross-section challenge' regarding the exclusion of African American and Hispanic American jurors under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) and the Sixth Amendment. While the court acknowledges these demographics are 'distinctive groups,' it rules that Schulte failed to meet the second and third elements of the Duren test, resulting in the rejection of his challenge.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity