The defendant, Joshua Adam Schulte, a former CIA employee, moves to dismiss the third superseding in...
Summary
The defendant, Joshua Adam Schulte, a former CIA employee, moves to dismiss the third superseding indictment on the grounds that the grand jury venire did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. The court denies the motion, rejecting Schulte's claims under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968. The case involves charges related to stealing national defense information and transmitting it to Wikileaks.
Persons Referenced (3)
Tags
Related Documents (6)
The document discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it was obtaine...
The document discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and the JSSA, due to issues with the jury selection process in the White Plains courthouse. The court provides background on the District's jury selection plan and the defendant's claims. The motion is based on alleged underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American populations in the grand jury venire.
Court Opinion & Order: 17-Cr-548
The defendant, Joshua Adam Schulte, a former CIA employee, moves to dismiss the third superseding indictment on the grounds that the grand jury venire did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. The court denies the motion, rejecting Schulte's claims under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968. The case involves charges related to stealing national defense information and transmitting it to Wikileaks.
court filing: 20-cr-17-00388
The document discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and the JSSA, due to issues with the jury selection process in the White Plains courthouse. The court provides background on the District's jury selection plan and the defendant's claims. The motion is based on alleged underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American populations in the grand jury venire.
court filing: Case 4:20-cr-00354-PAE Document 1359 Filed 03/22/21 Page 16 of 20
The court rejects Schulte's claims that the Jury Plan violates the Sixth Amendment due to systematic exclusion, citing various reasons including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of voter registration lists. The court relies on precedent, such as Rioux and Schanbarger, to support its conclusions. The defendant's allegations regarding the Jury Plan's replenishment period and exclusion of 'inactive voters' are also dismissed.
court filing: Case:20-17-00-8854-APD Document:1859 Filed:03/22/21 Page:13 of 20
The document discusses a court case where the defendant, Schulte, challenges the indictment obtained from White Plains, arguing that the relevant community is the district or division where the trial will be held. The court distinguishes this case from United States v. Johnson and applies the absolute disparity method to analyze underrepresentation.
court filing: Case:20-cj-017-00 Document#:1859 Filed:03/22/21
The court is analyzing the defendant's fair cross-section challenge and must determine the relevant jury venire. The defendant argues that the White Plains qualified wheel is the relevant jury venire, while the government contends that the White Plains master wheel is the correct jury venire. The court agrees with the government.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.