DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
1.01 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.01 MB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness / Juror |
Referred to as Ms. Conrad, she is the witness being questioned throughout the transcript about her suitability and po...
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Named in the case title, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. He is also mentioned by name during qu...
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
An attorney conducting the direct examination of Ms. Conrad on pages 209 and 210.
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
An attorney who objects on page 209 and conducts the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad on pages 211 and 212.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge, who speaks multiple times to manage the proceedings, address attorneys, and rule on evidence.
|
| Ms. McCarthy | Attorney |
An attorney who addresses the court on page 211 regarding a housekeeping matter and the admission of exhibit PMD 23.
|
| Mr. Gair | Attorney |
Mentioned on page 211 by Ms. McCarthy as someone who 'offered some [evidence] at the end'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case, as stated in the document title.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | company |
The court reporting service credited at the bottom of the document.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2012-02-15
Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding her potential bias and failure to disclose personal history during jury selection.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned on page 210 in the context of an outstanding warrant for Ms. Conrad's husband.
|
Relationships (4)
Ms. Conrad
→
personal
→
Ms. Conrad's husband
Ms. Conrad states on page 210 that her husband 'seems to be a professional defendant' and has 'seven felony convictions' and an 'outstanding warrant from Arizona'.
Mr. Schectman is the attorney conducting the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, questioning her about her suitability as a juror.
Mr. Okula is the attorney conducting the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad.
Ms. Conrad
→
legal
→
Paul M. Daugerdas
Ms. Conrad was a juror in the case against the defendant, Paul Daugerdas. She states on page 212 that she had no personal bias against him and did not know him before the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"If they knew you were a suspended lawyer with a history of alcoholism with three misdemeanor convictions, with a husband who had seven felony convictions, who had involvement with licensing authorities, who had an outstanding warrant from Arizona, is it your view that these lawyers would have seen you as a different person, a far different person than the one you portrayed yourself to be?"Source
— Questioner (presumably Mr. Schectman)
(A question posed to Ms. Conrad on page 210 summarizing the information she allegedly failed to disclose during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #1
"Well, my husband seems to be a professional defendant, so I probably would have in their mind been a keeper for their side."Source
— Ms. Conrad
(Her response on page 210 when asked why the defense counsel would have been 'wild to have' her on the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #2
"So when you failed to tell the truth about your education and failed to reveal your criminal record and your status as a suspended attorney, it was not because you were biased against one party or another, is that correct?"Source
— MR. OKULA
(A question during cross-examination on page 212 to establish that Ms. Conrad's omissions were not due to bias for or against the prosecution or defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document