Event Details
Date Unknown
Description
The defendant in the Bahna case raised a fair cross-section challenge following his second conviction, arguing the jury pool was unrepresentative.
Participants (1)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bahna | person | 4 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00002831.jpg
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.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Initial trial of the defendant in the Bahna case for various narcotics crimes.
Date unknown • Eastern District of New York’s Brooklyn courthouse
Second trial of the defendant in the Bahna case, which was granted after the initial trial.
Date unknown • Eastern District’s Uniondale courthouse
The Second Circuit rejected the defendant's reasoning in the Bahna case and upheld the conviction.
1995-01-01
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event