Epstein Secrets

y. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299,300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. Uni

099947 Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterpris

community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522,524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate measure in th

onstrate 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, individu

v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. Un

0077612 Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterpris

community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate measure in t

onstrate 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, individu

v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. Un

0039427 Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterpris

community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate measure in t

onstrate 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, individu

th v. Maiyland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 83, 84 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 34 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 208 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 206, 208 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 40 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 35 Toussie v. Un

150, 151 Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) 176 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 87 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 210 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 166 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterpris

community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defense motion re

onstrate 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, individu

community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Biota, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate measure in t

onstrate 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, individu