DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
1010 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1010 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, containing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding her service in the trial of U.S. v. Daugerdas, et al. The questioning attorney probes Conrad's impartiality by referencing her past criminal record, her status as a suspended attorney, and a letter she wrote after the verdict. Conrad affirms that while she initially believed defendant David Parse was guilty, her final decision was based solely on Judge Pauley's legal instructions and was free from any bias.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness / Juror |
The individual being cross-examined about her role as a juror, her past criminal record, and her impartiality.
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Named in the case title, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.
|
| Mr. Gair | Attorney |
Mentioned as the attorney who was asking questions of the witness, Conrad, and referenced a letter she sent.
|
| David Parse | Defendant |
A defendant in the case whom the juror, Conrad, initially believed should have been found guilty.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
The judge who provided legal instructions and a jury charge to the jury, which influenced Conrad's final decision.
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney who also questioned Conrad about her past criminal cases.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.
|
| IRS | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of IRS agents, whom the juror Conrad did not know.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | company |
Appears in the footer of the document, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (5 events)
The underlying trial in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where Ms. Conrad was arrested for a disorderly conduct offense.
|
Relationships (3)
Conrad served as a juror in a trial where David Parse was a defendant. She initially believed he was guilty but changed her mind after reviewing the judge's instructions.
Conrad received and followed legal instructions from Judge Pauley during the trial, which she states formed the basis of her final conclusion in the case.
Key Quotes (5)
"Without getting into your deliberations with the other jurors, is it correct that as you said in the letter that you viewed initially during your, when you began deliberating, that Mr. Parse should have been found guilty?"Source
— Questioning Attorney
(The attorney is questioning Conrad about a letter she wrote, confirming her initial belief about a defendant's guilt during deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
Quote #1
"So is it fair to say that when you personally deliberated with respect to Mr. Parse, you reached your conclusion based on the legal instruction that Judge Pauley gave you and without bias to any side. Fair?"Source
— Questioning Attorney
(The attorney is establishing that Conrad's final decision was based on the judge's instructions and not personal bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
Quote #2
"100 percent. Correct."Source
— Conrad
(Conrad's response confirming that her verdict regarding Mr. Parse was based entirely on Judge Pauley's legal instructions and was without bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
Quote #3
"Did the fact that you were a criminal defendant in a prior case affect you from fairly and impartially judging the evidence in this case and weighing and applying Judge Pauley's legal instruction?"Source
— Questioning Attorney
(The attorney is probing whether Conrad's own history as a criminal defendant created any bias in her role as a juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
Quote #4
"Absolutely not."Source
— Conrad
(Conrad's firm denial that her past as a criminal defendant affected her ability to be an impartial juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document