Epstein Secrets

Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arid, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et aL, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. 2. The SDNY Jury Plan The Jury Selection and Ser

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

kt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. 2. The SDNY Jury Plan The Jury Selection and Ser

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

kt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. 2. The SDNY Jury Plan The Jury Selection and Ser

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

kt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. 2. The SDNY Jury Plan The Jury Selection and Se

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

kt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt. No. 98. 2. The SDNY Jury Plan The Jury Selection and Ser

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