Epstein Secrets

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. I. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Un

U.S. 702 (1997) Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) 151 passim 209,210,220 Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) 293 Zietzke v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 121 Statutes 18 U.S.C. §1623(a) 118

Jury Wheel to the population of the Manhattan "Division"—the defendant fails to establish unfair underrepresentation under the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, the defendant has not established that any disparity resulted from systemic exclusion of a particular group. Accordingly, the motion

698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T]there is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

.S. 702 (1997) Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) 209, 151 passim 210, 220 Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) 293 Zietzke v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 121 Statutes 18 U.S.C. §I623(a) 118

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00077829 establish a prima facie viol

698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T]there is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

.S. 702 (1997) Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) 209, 151 passim 210, 220 Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) 293 Zietzke v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 121 Statutes 18 U.S.C. §I623(a) 118

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00039644 establish a prima facie viol

698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T]there is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cr

292 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit July may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[Tjthere is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

.S. 702 (1997) Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) 209, 151 passim 210, 220 Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) 293 Zietzke v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 121 Statutes 18 U.S.C. §I623(a) 118

rantees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rios, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00103222 establish a prima facie viol

698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that "[a] petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the whole district"); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 318 (3d Cir. 1980) ("[T)there is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed