Kalar mentioned that, by means of an unbiased statistician, Kelly supplied proof that the federal grand jury that indicted him was chosen from a pool of residents that systematically underrepresented Black individuals, violating the Sixth Modification, Jury Choice and Service Act, and the fifth Modification’s Equal Safety Clause.
“Black residents have been underrepresented on this grand jury venire by a surprising 49% — three normal deviations away from the anticipated composition,” the temporary says.
Federal prosecutors disagreed, arguing that the court docket summoned 2,000 eligible grand jurors and adopted its randomized protocols for choosing the panel that heard the federal government’s case. They mentioned the court docket’s evaluation discovered no legally vital underrepresentation of Black jury members.
Whereas a comparative disparity take a look at confirmed that there was some statistically vital underrepresentation of Black individuals within the grand jury pool, the prosecutors mentioned it didn’t rise to the authorized bar wanted to qualify in court docket.
Kalar referred to as the instances the federal government relied on to attract that authorized line “inapposite or unpersuasive.”
Along with his objection to the decision as a complete, Kalar additionally made a extra pointed argument for interesting Kelly’s convictions on two counts associated to “trustworthy companies” fraud.
Kalar argued that in trial, the court docket allowed the federal government to introduce improper proof associated to these expenses, which have been primarily based on allegations that Kelly accepted bribes, together with a lavish meal and a five-star resort keep from Wong in trade for serving to his corporations get a leg up on metropolis contract proposals.
Regardless of objections from Kelly’s attorneys forward of trial, the court docket allowed prosecutors to indicate proof of San Francisco’s ethics guidelines and rules in court docket. Kalar wrote that this could not have been permitted, since trustworthy companies fraud “can’t be primarily based on the violation of a metropolis or state regulation.
