Skip to content
Case File
d-8544Court UnsealedLegal Filing

court filing: Case 1:17-cr-00533-JAE Document 1359 Filed 03/23/21 Page 19 of 20

Date
Unknown
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
File: case 1:17-cr-00533-jae document 1359 filed 03/23/21 page 19 of 20
Pages
1
Persons
3

Summary

The court rejects Schulte's allegations that the Government's decision to seek an indictment in White Plains and errors in the jury selection process violated the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA). The court agrees with Judge Roman's reasoning in a related case and finds that any alleged errors were technical or minimal.

This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.

View Source Collection

Persons Referenced (3)

Browse epstein-docs ArchiveFile: case 1:17-cr-00533-jae document 1359 filed 03/23/21 page 19 of 20
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

court filing: Case 1:17-cr-00365-DLC Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 20 of 20

The document discusses the court's decision on defining the relevant jury pool and community for Schulte's trial, agreeing with the Government that the northern counties from which White Plains draws jurors represent the relevant community.

1p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

court filing: Case 2:17-cr-00365-JMA Document 1859 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 20

The court rejects Schulte's contention that the relevant community for his fair cross-section challenge is the Manhattan counties or the entire District, instead concluding that the White Plains counties are the relevant community. The court also finds that the government's decision to seek the indictment from White Plains was proper. The ruling is based on the precedent set in United States v. Bahna.

1p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

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.

1p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

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.

1p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

Court Filing: 185

The Government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan, referencing a recent decision by Judge Crotty in United States v. Schulte, which rejected a similar Sixth Amendment claim. The Government argues that Judge Crotty's decision supports their position in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The letter outlines the key findings from Judge Crotty's decision.

2p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

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.

1p

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.