Epstein Secrets

4 EFTA00106018 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 5, 7 Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) 1 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S

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 EFTA00077250 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 5, 7 Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) 1 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S

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 EFTA00099511 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 5, 7 Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990) 1 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S

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

17). The 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

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

17). The 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

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

17). The 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

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

17). The 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 defe

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

17). The 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

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