DOJ-OGR-00002831.jpg

CaGade20-rr-0028540APAC DOnourtaiahd Fikeda22e21 PaRagé bb 20 20 undivided, the District’s Jury Plan can divide territorially in the interests of “an impartial trial, of economy and of lessening the burden of attendance.” United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360, 364 (2d Cir. 1948); see Jury Plan. Accordingly, the rationale justifying this territorial division is based on administrative feasibility. See Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *1, With this background in mind, the legal issue at hand becomes straightforward. The Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995), frames the inquiry and supplies its answer. In Bahna, a defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of various narcotics crimes in the Eastern District of New York’s Brooklyn courthouse. /d. at 20. But following his initial trial, the defendant was granted a new trial. Id. Saliently, the defendant’s second trial occurred before a different judge and in a different venue—the Eastern District’s Uniondale courthouse.> Id. Of concern here, the defendant raised a fair cross-section challenge following his second conviction. Id, at 23-24. Under the Eastern District’s jury plan, the Brooklyn courthouse drew jurors from all of the counties within the Eastern District, while the Uniondale courthouse only drew from Nassau and Suffolk counties. See id. at 24. Accordingly, the defendant argued that the Uniondale courthouse’s jury wheel underrepresented African American and Hispanic American jurors in comparison to their demographics in the relevant community—which he alleged to be all of the counties making up the Eastern District. Id. The Second Circuit, however, rejected that reasoning and held that, “Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has 5 The trial court stated that the reason for the transfer “was to accommodate trial congestion in the court’s calendar during a period of judicial emergency in the Eastern District.” Soares v. United States, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 10 DOJ-OGR- 00002831