DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
476 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
476 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Parse |
Mentioned in the context of a question about whether he knew he was defrauding the government.
|
|
| Catherine Conrad |
Identified as the author of a juror's note being discussed in the argument.
|
|
| Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker, indicating the person presiding over the legal proceeding.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned multiple times in the context of being defrauded and its legal position.
|
| Third Circuit | government agency |
Referenced in relation to a case law (the Breakiron case) relevant to the argument.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal proceeding, whose position is being questioned by the speaker.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A speaker, likely a lawyer, is presenting an argument to a judge ('your Honor') regarding the interpretation of a juror's note and its implications for prejudice in a case involving a Mr. Parse.
court
Mr. Parse (subject)
Catherine Conrad (subject)
Honor (presiding judge)
unnamed speaker (lawyer)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Part of the name of the court reporting company, indicating the jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (2)
The speaker addresses the 'Honor' directly, which is standard courtroom protocol for a lawyer addressing a judge.
The speaker is arguing a legal point concerning Mr. Parse's knowledge and actions, suggesting a lawyer-client or lawyer-subject relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was defrauding the government."Source
— unnamed speaker
(The speaker is framing the central issue of the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #1
"We ended up with an argument about the contents of the note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether there was prejudice here."Source
— unnamed speaker
(Summarizing the current point of contention in the legal proceeding.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #2
"All of this began with the government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits."Source
— unnamed speaker
(Explaining the origin of the argument and citing a specific legal rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document