Epstein Secrets

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

l is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Master Jury Wheel, the White Plains Master Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. Although the Master Jury Wheel does no

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

l is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Master Jury Wheel, the White Plains Master Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. Although the Master Jury Wheel does no

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

l is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Master Jury Wheel, the White Plains Master Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. Although the Master Jury Wheel does no

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

l is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Master Jury Wheel, the White Plains Master Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. Although the Master Jury Wheel does no

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

l is reduced to the subset of qualified jurors contained in the Qualified Wheel. Because the "systematic defect" alleged by the defendant relates to the Master Jury Wheel, the White Plains Master Jury Wheel is the appropriate "relevant jury pool." Rioux, 930 F. Supp. at 1566-68. Although the Master Jury Wheel does no