| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | Initial trial of the defendant in the Bahna case for various narcotics crimes. | Eastern District of New Yor... | View |
| N/A | Trial | Second trial of the defendant in the Bahna case, which was granted after the initial trial. | Eastern District’s Uniondal... | View |
| N/A | Legal challenge | The defendant in the Bahna case raised a fair cross-section challenge following his second convic... | Eastern District of New York | View |
| 1995-01-01 | Legal decision | The Second Circuit rejected the defendant's reasoning in the Bahna case and upheld the conviction. | N/A | View |
This document is page 12 of a court filing (Document 859) dated March 24, 2021, from a criminal case involving a defendant named Schulte (likely Joshua Schulte, though found in a DOJ release). The text outlines the court's rejection of the defendant's arguments regarding venue impropriety, affirming that it is constitutional to indict in one courthouse (White Plains) and try in another (Manhattan) within the same district. The court cites the COVID-19 pandemic delays in Summer 2020 as further justification for the procedural flexibility.
This document, a page from a legal filing, discusses the legal precedent for dividing a judicial district for the purpose of jury selection. It centers on the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Bahna, where a defendant's second trial was moved to a different courthouse that drew jurors from a smaller, less diverse geographic pool than the entire district. The Second Circuit upheld this practice, ruling that the fairness of a jury pool should be evaluated based on the specific division from which it is drawn, not the district as a whole, especially when the division is based on administrative feasibility.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity