DOJ-OGR-00003768.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document211 Filed 04/16/21 Page5of11
The government thus raises only two points of dispute. First, it claims that even though
the offenses in the Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) are alleged to have occurred in
Manhattan (to the extent they occurred in the Southern District at all), and even though the case
has been assigned to and will be tried in this Court, the appropriate comparison population for
purposes of the second Duren prong is the eligible juror population of the White Plains Counties,
rather than that of either the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District as a whole. Second,
the government argues that Ms. Maxwell has not satisfied the third Duren prong because any
underrepresentation was not the result of systematic exclusion, even though the
underrepresentation is attributable solely to the government’s decision to indict Ms. Maxwell
using a White Plains grand jury. Both arguments fail.
I. The Relevant “Community” for Comparison Purposes Is the Manhattan Counties
or, in the Alternative, the Southern District of New York.
The second prong of Duren asks whether a group’s representation in the source from
which juries are selected is “fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the
community.” Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. “Although the Duren court did not clearly define the term
‘community,’ it is generally accepted that the term refers to the district or division where the trial
is to be held.” United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also
United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (“the term refers to the district—
or division, when a district has been so divided—where the trial is to be held”)
While the government argues that those cases are inapposite because the grand jury and
petit jury sat in the same courthouse, it cites no case that holds otherwise where the grand jury
and petit jury sit in different courthouses—or any other case that holds that the relevant
“community” for a grand jury is a community that excludes jurors from the county in which the
trial is to be held (and in which the offense allegedly occurred). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1861,
DOJ-OGR- 00003768
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00003768.jpg |
| File Size | 761.1 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 95.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,224 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 16:40:37.917706 |