United States v. Lawrence
Decision Date | 09 August 2021 |
Docket Number | 21 Cr. 127 (PGG) |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Andrew LAWRENCE, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Andrew Wesley Jones, Assistant US Attorney, DOJ-USAO, New York, NY, for United States of America.
Sylvie Jill Levine, Public Defender, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant.
Defendant Andrew Lawrence is charged with felon in possession, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g). He has moved to dismiss on the grounds that the grand jury venire that returned the Indictment was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (the "JSSA"). For the reasons stated below, Lawrence's motion will be denied.
On December 1, 2020, Lawrence was arrested in connection with an assault that occurred several months earlier in the Bronx. (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 1, 3-5) In a search incident to arrest, Lawrence was found to be in possession of a 9 mm. semi-automatic handgun. (Id. ¶ 5(c)) In July 2015, Lawrence was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in the third degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16. This offense is a felony. (Id. ¶ 9)
On February 25, 2021, Lawrence was charged with knowing possession of a firearm following a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g). (Indictment (Dkt. No. 5))
On March 29, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the grand jury that indicted him does not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, because Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in the Southern District of New York's jury pool. According to Lawrence, this alleged underrepresentation is a product of this District's juror selection process. (See Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 13)) Lawrence contends that the juror selection process violates the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA.1 (Dkt. No. 12)
28 U.S.C. §§ 1861 - 62. The JSSA requires federal district courts to "devise and place into operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit jurors that shall be designed to achieve" the JSSA's objectives. Id. § 1863(a).
Id. § 1863(b)(1)-(8).
(Id. Article VII; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b) )
The following persons may be excused from jury service or deferred upon request:
Based on questionnaires completed by prospective jurors, jury wheels are populated with the names and addresses of all eligible jurors and then separated into a Manhattan qualified wheel and a White Plains qualified wheel, using the same county divisions as the master wheels. (Id. Articles III(D), IV(B)) Jurors from Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties are "divided between" the Manhattan and White Plains qualified wheels in a manner that "reasonably reflect[s] the relative number of registered voters in each county within the respective Master Jury Wheels." (Id. Article IV(B)) At all times, the qualified wheels must contain at least 500 names. (Id. Article IV(A))
In selecting jurors for grand or petit jury panels, the Clerk of Court publicly draws from the qualified wheels, at random, the names of "as many persons as appear to be needed for grand or petit juries." (Id. Article IV(C)) The Clerk then "randomly assign[s] jurors to jury panels for individual trial parts and grand juries, as needed." (Id. ) A summons is issued to each selected person at that person's "usual residence or business address" by first class, certified, or registered mail. (Id. Article IV(D))
"The Sixth Amendment secures to criminal defendants the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community." Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 319, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010).
In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 ... (1979), Court described three showings a criminal defendant must make to establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. He or she must show: "(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Landji
...across different races and ethnicities - and is not a feature of the jury selection process itself. (Id. at 61, 65-66) In United States v, Lawrence, this Court addressed defendant's claim that this District's practices in creating the grand jury pool from voter registration lists cause the ......
- Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.
-
United States v. Encarnacion-Velzez
...with their Sixth Amendment claim, and the Putnam County error was merely a technical glitch, the JSSA claim also fails. See Lawrence, 553 F.Supp.3d at 148. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above and all of the reasons other judges have cited in denying substantially identical motion......
-
United States v. Saipov
...persistent underrepresentation is insufficient to demonstrate systematic exclusion. See Neilly, 2021 WL 3913559, at *3; see also Lawrence, 553 F.Supp.3d at 142 (making specific finding, but challenging defendant's reliance on Duren and Biaggi for the proposition that systematic exclusion ca......