DOJ-OGR-00003172.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 238 of 239 2012) (affirming Judge Bianco’s “thorough and well-reasoned” opinion). Indeed, “‘[a] selection process that is facially neutral is unlikely to demonstrate systematic exclusion.’” United States v. Savage, 970 F.3d 217, 259 (3d Cir. 2020) (brackets in original) (quoting Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260, 269 (2d Cir. 2019)). Moreover, a defendant cannot “make out a prima facie case merely by pointing to a host of factors that, individually or in combination, might contribute to a group’s underrepresentation.” Berghuis, 559 U.S. at 332 (emphasis in original). Insofar as the underrepresentation here is measured by a comparison of the White Plains Qualified Wheel to the jury eligible population of the ‘““Manhattan Division” or entire Southern District, the defendant’s argument rests entirely on the prosecution’s decision to pursue an indictment in White Plains rather than Manhattan. (Def. Mot. 9 at 7). That decision was entirely proper, as set forth above. See Section XI.C.1, supra. And even if it were the case that this decision resulted in substantial underrepresentation, it nevertheless does not amount to “systematic exclusion . . . in the jury-selection process.” The prosecution’s decision as to where to seek an indictment was based entirely on the availability of grand juries during a pandemic, which has nothing to do with the process by which the grand jury is selected. The defendant points to no other source of any supposed systemic exclusion of any identified group. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim also fails at the third prong of Duren. 211 DOJ-OGR-00003172