Case No. 4:01 CR 207
March 22, 2002
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
Before the Court are Defendant Traficants motions to dismiss the superseding indictment based on an alleged violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1867 and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Docket ft 187, 192). Defendant Traficant claims that this Court erred in following the Juror Selection Plan of the Northern District of Ohio because the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council certified that the Plan, with its newest amendments, complies with federal law on 24 June 2001, four months after he was originally indicted.
28 U.S.C. § 1863 (a).
The current Plan was adopted by the Northern District of Ohio on 7 April 1997, over forty-eight months before Defendant Traficant was originally indicted. Since that date, the Plan has been in effect and has been applied in every criminal case in the district. On 24 June 2001, after the Plan had been effective for over four years, the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council took the further step of certifying that the Plan complied with federal law. The Grand Jury handed down the superceding indictment on 26 October 2001. (Docket # 68). Thus, the Plan was in effect, and even certified as complying with federal law, before Defendant Traficant was charged with the crimes for which he is currently standing trial.
This Court's application of the district's Juror Selection Plan to this case does not violate 28 U.S.C. § 1867 or the Sixth Amendment. As this Court explained in its 15 January 2002 order (Docket It 132), the Juror Selection Plan applies in every case in the district and helps to ensure that every defendant in a criminal case receives the fair and impartial jury to which he or she is entitled.
Accordingly, Defendant Traficants two motions to dismiss the indictment are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.