Skip to content
Case File
d-8659Court UnsealedLegal Filing

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

Date
Unknown
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
File: case 2:17-cr-00365-jma document 1859 filed 03/22/21 page 11 of 20
Pages
1
Persons
5

Summary

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.

This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.

View Source Collection
Browse epstein-docs ArchiveFile: case 2:17-cr-00365-jma document 1859 filed 03/22/21 page 11 of 20
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

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

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.

1p
Court UnsealedLegal FilingUnknown

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.

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 Filing: 128

The government responds to the court's order regarding the defendant's proposed redactions to pre-trial motions, agreeing with most redactions while suggesting additional ones to protect ongoing investigations and victim-witnesses' privacy. The letter is part of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case.

2p

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