Epstein Secrets

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

ivision and the qualified wheel for White Plains. Mr. Martin's analysis found significant underrepresentation of both Black and Hispanic persons in the White Plains qualified wheel when compared to the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division. Mr. Martin found that the eligible juror population of the

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

ivision and the qualified wheel for White Plains. Mr. Martin's analysis found significant underrepresentation of both Black and Hispanic persons in the White Plains qualified wheel when compared to the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division. Mr. Martin found that the eligible juror population of the

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

ivision and the qualified wheel for White Plains. Mr. Martin's analysis found significant underrepresentation of both Black and Hispanic persons in the White Plains qualified wheel when compared to the eligible juror population of the Manhattan Division. Mr. Martin found that the eligible juror population of the

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656. Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth belo

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656. Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth belo

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656. Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth belo

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See RiOUX, 97 F.3d at 656. Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth belo

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

as well as the appropriate method of statistical comparison. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 656. Here, the defendant contends that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Qualified Wheel. (Def. Mot. 9 at 5-6). The Government believes that the relevant jury pool is the White Plains Master Wheel, but, as set forth belo