# Document EFTA 02830678



United States Attorney Southern District of New York

The SilvioJ. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007

March 26, 2021

# BY ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007

Re: United States v. Ghislaine Marvell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

Dear Judge Nathan:

The Government respectfully writes to bring the Court's attention to a recent decision by Judge Crotty in United States v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), which is attached hereto as Exhibit I ("Schulte Op."). In that case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on November 16, 2020 (see 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), ECF No. 435), which was virtually identical in multiple respects to the January 25, 2021 motion to dismiss the indictment filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned case (see 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), ECF No. 126). Like Maxwell, the defendant in Schulte asserted, among other things, a claim under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that the indictment should be dismissed because the grand jury sitting in Plains unfairly underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals. Judge Crony rejected those claims in their entirety and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Crotty's thorough, wellreasoned decision supports the Government's position in this case.

In particular, in assessing the defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, Judge Crotty found that: (1) the relevant jury pool is the Plains Wheel (Schulte Op. 8-9); (2) the relevant "community" is the Plains voting age population (Schulte Op. 9-11); (3) it was entirely proper for the Government to seek an indictment in Plains, despite the fact that the trial is likely to occur in Manhattan (Schulte Op. 11-13); and (4) the appropriate method of statistical comparison is the "absolute disparity" method (Schulte Op. 13-14). Judge Crotty therefore found that the defendant had not demonstrated substantial underrepresentation under the second prong of the standard set forth in Dunn v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1974). (Schulte Op. 13-15). Judge Crotty further found that the defendant's claim failed on Duren's third prong, as well, because the defendant had not established that any underrepresentation was the product of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. (Schulte Op. 15-17).

Respectfully submitted,

AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney

by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lan Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324

cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF)