Epstein Secrets

sfy the second prong of the Duren test. 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995). The unique facts of Jackman make it readily distinguishable. The jury clerk in Jaclanan relied on a qualified jury wheel that was mostly drawn from a master jury wheel that completely excluded potential jurors from two cities in the Di

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. 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

sfy the second prong of the Duren test. 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995). The unique facts of Jackman make it readily distinguishable. The jury clerk in Jaclanan relied on a qualified jury wheel that was mostly drawn from a master jury wheel that completely excluded potential jurors from two cities in the Di

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. 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

sfy the second prong of the Duren test. 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995). The unique facts of Jackman make it readily distinguishable. The jury clerk in Jaclanan relied on a qualified jury wheel that was mostly drawn from a master jury wheel that completely excluded potential jurors from two cities in the Di

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. 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), Dk

sfy the second prong of the Duren test. 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995). The unique facts of Jackman make it readily distinguishable. The jury clerk in Jaclanan relied on a qualified jury wheel that was mostly drawn from a master jury wheel that completely excluded potential jurors from two cities in the Di

. 25; United States v. Crornitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. 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