Bahna
defendant in a Second Circuit case that frames the inquiry into jury division and fair cross-section challenges
Mentioned in 2 documents. Roles: defendant in a Second Circuit case that frames the inquiry into jury division and fair cross-section challenges, precedent-setting case
Bahna is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
2 sources for document mentions
court filing or legal brief: Case 2:17-cr-00354-JAK Document 1859 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 20
“The document analyzes the District's Jury Plan and its territorial division, referencing United Stat”
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 challe”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 2 documents”
Known Connections (1)
Document Mentions (2)
court filing or legal brief: Case 2:17-cr-00354-JAK Document 1859 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 20
The document analyzes the District's Jury Plan and its territorial division, referencing United States v. Gottfried and United States v. Bahna. It discusses the rationale behind dividing jury pools territorially and the implications for fair cross-section challenges. The Second Circuit's decision in Bahna is highlighted as framing the inquiry into whether a jury venire drawn from a properly designated division satisfies fair cross-section requirements.
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.
This dossier on Bahna was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.