DOJ-OGR-00002829.jpg

CaGade20-rr-0088640APAC DOnourEissa Fieeoa22e?1 PaBagec8 20 20 A. Underrepresentation The second element under Duren examines whether the groups’ representation “in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community.” 439 U.S. at 364. To answer this question, however, the Court must first define the relevant variables, namely (a) the jury venire and (b) the community. 1. Relevant Jury Venire The parties dispute which jury pool ought to be used to analyze the Defendant’s fair cross-section challenge. Schulte relies on United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 648, and contends that the White Plains qualified wheel is the relevant jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 8.) The Government argues that the White Plains master wheel constitutes the appropriate jury venire. (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 15.) The Court agrees with the Government. “Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the ‘relevant jury pool’ with any specificity.” United States v. Rioux, 930 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (D. Conn. 1995) (examining caselaw); see also Allen, 2021 WL 431458 (stating that the “Second Circuit has not stated a preference for the use of one wheel over the other”). In Rioux, for example, the Second Circuit observed that the “relevant jury poo! may be defined by: (1) the master list; (2) the qualified wheel; (3) the venires, or (4) a combination of the three.” 97 F.3d at 655-56. Aithough the Rioux court did designate the qualified jury wheel as the relevant venire, see id., that conclusion only followed because the parties agreed “that the qualified wheel may serve as the relevant jury pool.” Jd. That is not the case here, so the Court finds Rioux to be of little impact. Instead, the Court concludes that the White Plains master wheel is the relevant jury venire. As noted by the Government (Gov’t Opp. Br. at 16-18) several district courts within this DOJ-OGR-00002829