DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
991 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
991 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on allegations that Conrad was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by deliberately omitting that she was an attorney and by providing a false address (Bronxville) to Judge Pauley. Conrad admits to the 'omission' of her legal background but distinguishes it from a lie, while the questioner challenges her credibility and the truthfulness of her statements under oath.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness |
The person being questioned (giving testimony) throughout the document, referred to as 'A' and 'Ms. Conrad'.
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
Makes an objection on page 141.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who conducted the voir dire and asked the witness questions about her residence.
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Named in the case title 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case, as seen in the document header.
|
| THE COURT | government agency |
Referenced throughout the testimony as the judicial body being addressed or allegedly misled.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to 2012-02-15
A jury selection process where Judge Pauley questioned potential jurors, including Conrad. During this event, Conrad omitted that she was an attorney and provided information about her residence that is the subject of the testimony.
Courtroom
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location where the witness, Conrad, allegedly claimed to live.
|
|
|
A location the questioner claims Conrad told Judge Pauley she lived in. Conrad refutes its existence, stating 'There ...
|
|
|
The location the questioner clarifies Conrad told Judge Pauley she lived, which Conrad confirms.
|
Relationships (2)
The document is a transcript of an adversarial legal questioning, where the questioner is probing the witness, Conrad, about her truthfulness and potential perjury.
The testimony describes Judge Pauley's role in questioning Conrad during the voir dire process for jury selection.
Key Quotes (6)
"I did not reveal that I was an attorney."Source
— Conrad
(Responding to a question about whether she deliberately decided to mislead the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #1
"I omitted the fact that I was an attorney."Source
— Conrad
(Admitting to not disclosing her profession during voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #2
"It was an omission."Source
— Conrad
(Distinguishing her action from an active lie when asked if she lied to the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #3
"Okay. So there's a distinction in your mind between omitting a truth and lying, is that correct?"Source
— Questioner
(Pressing the witness on her distinction between omitting information and lying.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #4
"Well, didn't you tell Judge Pauley that you lived in Bronx Village in Westchester?"Source
— Questioner
(Accusing the witness of lying about her residence to the judge during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #5
"There is no such thing as Bronx Village."Source
— Conrad
(Denying the existence of the location she was accused of claiming as her residence.)
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document