Duren
defendant in Duren v. Missouri, a relevant case
Mentioned in 3 documents. Roles: defendant in Duren v. Missouri, a relevant case, referring to the Duren v. Missouri Supreme Court case, referenced in the Duren test for fair cross-section claims
Duren is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
5 sources for document mentions
Technical description of OpenCog procedure nodes and links
2025-11-11
“The passage is a purely technical explanation of software architecture with no mention of influentia”
court filing: Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 20
“This court filing discusses the applicable law regarding the Sixth Amendment right to a jury venire ”
court filing or legal memorandum: Case:20-1-00386-48AEAC Document:1859 Filed:03/24/21 Page:6 of 20
“The document discusses the legal standards for challenging jury selection processes, including the r”
court filing: Case:20-cr-117-00:3834EAC Document#:1859 Filed:03/22/21 Page:15 of 20
“The document argues that Schulte's fair cross-section challenge fails because he cannot meet the thi”
court filing: Case:20-cv-017-00686-PAE Document#:1859 Filed:03/24/21 Page:7 of 20
“The document analyzes Schulte's fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA,”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 4 documents”
Known Connections (2)
Document Mentions (6)
Technical description of OpenCog procedure nodes and links
The passage is a purely technical explanation of software architecture with no mention of influential actors, financial flows, or misconduct. It offers no investigative leads. Describes various ProcedureNode types in OpenCog Explains ExecutionLink and EvaluationLink usage Provides examples of schema execution outputs
court filing: Case 1:17-cr-00348-LAP Document 1859 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 20
This court filing discusses the applicable law regarding the Sixth Amendment right to a jury venire drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, outlining the three elements required to establish a prima facie violation and the government's opportunity to rebut such a claim.
court filing or legal memorandum: Case:20-1-00386-48AEAC Document:1859 Filed:03/24/21 Page:6 of 20
The document discusses the legal standards for challenging jury selection processes, including the requirement to show a 'significant state interest' and intentional discrimination. It outlines the three-part test for equal protection challenges and notes that fair cross-section challenges under the JSSA are analyzed using the Sixth Amendment's Duren test.
court filing: Case:20-cr-117-00:3834EAC Document#:1859 Filed:03/22/21 Page:15 of 20
The document argues that Schulte's fair cross-section challenge fails because he cannot meet the third Duren element: systematic exclusion. It explains that systematic exclusion requires underrepresentation due to the jury selection system itself, not external forces. The government's choice of venue is not considered systematic exclusion.
court filing: Case:20-cv-017-00686-PAE Document#:1859 Filed:03/24/21 Page:7 of 20
The document analyzes Schulte's fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA, concluding that while Schulte satisfies the first element of the Duren test, he fails to establish the second and third elements, leading to the rejection of his challenge.
Telephone message logs: DOJ-OGR-00015528
The document contains logs of telephone messages for Jeffery from various individuals, including M Duren, M Glen, M Reyna (Mr. Copnfield's assistant), and Mr. Copnfield. The messages indicate attempts to contact Jeffery and discuss potential meetings or a show. The document is marked as a government exhibit in a criminal case.
This dossier on Duren was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.