DOJ-OGR-00002821.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document185 _ Filed 03/26/21 Page 2of2 Page 2 In particular, in assessing the defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim, Judge Crotty found that: (1) the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel (Schulte Op. 8-9); (2) the relevant “community” is the White Plains voting age population (Schulte Op. 9-11); (3) it was entirely proper for the Government to seek an indictment in White Plains, despite the fact that the trial is likely to occur in Manhattan (Schulte Op. 11-13); and (4) the appropriate method of statistical comparison is the “absolute disparity” method (Schulte Op. 13-14). Judge Crotty therefore found that the defendant had not demonstrated substantial underrepresentation under the second prong of the standard set forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1974). (Schulte Op. 13-15). Judge Crotty further found that the defendant’s claim failed on Duren’s third prong, as well, because the defendant had not established that any underrepresentation was the product of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. (Schulte Op. 15-17). Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney by: __/s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 ce Counsel of Record (by ECF) DOJ-OGR-00002821