DOJ-OGR-00003161.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 227 of 239 specific than the District where the offense was allegedly committed.”). Rather, “[c]ourts have broad latitude in defining the geographic area from which juries will be selected.” United States v. Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 757, 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Consistent with the foregoing, the SDNY Jury Plan creates two separate Master Wheels—one for the White Plains courthouse and one for the Manhattan courthouse, each of which draws from certain counties, with some overlapping counties. SDNY Jury Plan Art. III.B, HI.C. This is perfectly consistent with the JSSA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1869(e), and with longstanding precedent, as Judge Hand has explained: [T]he district and circuit courts have had power since the first Judiciary Act of 1789 to divide a district territorially in the interest of an impartial trial, of economy, and of lessening the burden of attendance. There cannot be the faintest question of the constitutionality of this statute; the courts have again and again recognized its validity. Furthermore, it would be impossible in practice to administer it, if it were a condition that that the divisions made must be so homogeneous that they showed an equal percentage of all possible groups. There are probably no districts in the Union, which can be divided without disclosing in the sections different racial, religious, political, social or economic percentages. To demand that they shall not, would be a fantastic pedantry which would serve no purpose and would put an end to the statute. United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360, 364 (2d Cir. 1948); accord Bahna, 68 F.3d at 24-25. There is accordingly no constitutional or statutory basis for the defendant’s claimed entitlement to a grand jury drawn from the population of the same “division” in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn courthouse; after that conviction was vacated, he was again convicted, this time at a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the “Long Island Division,” which included the Uniondale 200 DOJ-OGR-00003161