DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
849 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court order / opinion (page 17 of 20)
File Size:
849 KB
Summary
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.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Challenging jury selection process under Sixth and Fifth Amendments; arguments rejected by the Court.
|
| Rioux | Legal Precedent |
Cited case regarding 'external force' in jury exclusion.
|
| Duren | Legal Precedent |
Cited case establishing elements for fair cross-section challenges.
|
| Castaneda | Legal Precedent |
Cited case regarding exclusion of racial minorities from juries.
|
| Biaggi | Legal Precedent |
Cited case regarding proof of discriminatory intent.
|
| Allen | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (2021) regarding minimal effect of errors on venires.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Rejecting Schulte's arguments.
|
|
| County Board |
Responsible for voter registration status.
|
|
| Common Cause/New York |
Party in cited case v. Brehm.
|
|
| Gov't |
Government's Opposition Brief (Gov't Opp. Br.) cited regarding the 'technical glitch' argument.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
State whose voting laws are discussed.
|
|
|
Location of the 'master wheel' for jury selection where a technical glitch occurred.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York (cited in footnotes).
|
Key Quotes (6)
"alleged exclusion here (e.g. people moving) is an external force."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #1
"Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements under Duren."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #2
"Schulte next contends that the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors violates the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #3
"Schulte must furnish 'proof of discriminatory intent.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #4
"voters are designated 'inactive' when a 'County Board received information indicating that a voter may no longer be living at her address of registration.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #5
"the parties concede that this glitch actually augmented, not diminished, African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master wheel."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,324 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 17 of 20
alleged exclusion here (e.g. people moving) is an external force.⁹ Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658.
Accordingly, this argument must be rejected under Rioux.¹⁰ See id.
Accordingly, this argument must be rejected under Rioux.¹⁰ See id.
In sum, Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements under Duren.
Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and JSSA must be
rejected.
Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and JSSA must be
rejected.
II. Equal Protection Challenge
Schulte next contends that the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic
American jurors violates the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment. (Schulte Br. at
16–17.) As noted above, the Equal Protection clause forbids the exclusion of racial minorities
from grand and petit juries. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 492. But to establish a prima facie violation
of equal protection, Schulte must furnish “proof of discriminatory intent.” United States v.
Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677 (2d Cir. 1990). Because Schulte cannot make such a showing, his
Equal Protection challenge fails. His only contention on this element is that the
underrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanic Americans “cannot be the result of
American jurors violates the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment. (Schulte Br. at
16–17.) As noted above, the Equal Protection clause forbids the exclusion of racial minorities
from grand and petit juries. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 492. But to establish a prima facie violation
of equal protection, Schulte must furnish “proof of discriminatory intent.” United States v.
Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677 (2d Cir. 1990). Because Schulte cannot make such a showing, his
Equal Protection challenge fails. His only contention on this element is that the
underrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanic Americans “cannot be the result of
________________
⁹ Under New York law, voters are designated “inactive” when a “County Board received
information indicating that a voter may no longer be living at her address of registration.”
Common Cause/New York v. Brehm, 432 F. Supp.3d 285, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (examining New
York voting law).
⁹ Under New York law, voters are designated “inactive” when a “County Board received
information indicating that a voter may no longer be living at her address of registration.”
Common Cause/New York v. Brehm, 432 F. Supp.3d 285, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (examining New
York voting law).
¹⁰ The Court is unpersuaded by Schulte’s remaining allegations of systematic exclusion, which
are that (1) jurors drawn from the overlapping counties were inequitably prorated between the
two courthouses, and (2) a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel excluded jurors who
had provided an alternative address when registering to vote. As to the former claim, Schulte has
not shown that this alleged error caused the underrepresentation at issue. See Allen, 2021 WL
431458, at *11 (finding same error to have had “minimal” effect on venires). And as to the latter
claim, the parties concede that this glitch actually augmented, not diminished, African American
and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master wheel. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 17.)
Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the third prong under Duren.
are that (1) jurors drawn from the overlapping counties were inequitably prorated between the
two courthouses, and (2) a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel excluded jurors who
had provided an alternative address when registering to vote. As to the former claim, Schulte has
not shown that this alleged error caused the underrepresentation at issue. See Allen, 2021 WL
431458, at *11 (finding same error to have had “minimal” effect on venires). And as to the latter
claim, the parties concede that this glitch actually augmented, not diminished, African American
and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master wheel. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 17.)
Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the third prong under Duren.
17
DOJ-OGR-00002838
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document