DOJ-OGR-00010133.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal analysis, likely a judicial opinion, dated April 6, 2012, concerning the conduct of defense lawyers in case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP. The author examines statements made by the lawyers in a July 8, 2011 memorandum regarding their investigation into a juror named Conrad, concluding that while the statements could lead to a false inference, they do not constitute a knowing misrepresentation or unethical behavior. The document also recounts a July 15 telephone conference where the Court questioned the defense team, represented by Trzaskoma, about their awareness of issues with the juror.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Juror / Juror Number One |
A juror whose background and answers during voir dire are the subject of the lawyers' investigation and subsequent le...
|
| Trzaskoma | Unknown, likely a lawyer |
Responded to the Court during a telephone conference, stating unawareness of certain facts about Juror Conrad.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Presiding over the case (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP), questioning defendants, and being addressed in legal filings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2011-07-08
A memorandum was written or filed, which is the subject of analysis in this document.
lawyers
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the "New York Rules" regarding unethical behavior.
|
Relationships (2)
The lawyers investigated juror Conrad after receiving a letter and made arguments to the court based on their findings and her voir dire answers.
The Court directly questioned Trzaskoma during a telephone conference regarding the defendants' knowledge of issues with a juror.
Key Quotes (4)
"The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial (‘always head down, taking notes’), caused defendants concern and prompted them to investigate."Source
— The lawyers
(A quote from the lawyers' memorandum explaining why they began investigating Juror Conrad.)
DOJ-OGR-00010133.jpg
Quote #1
"This is not a situation where Conrad disclosed sufficient information to warrant inquiry by counsel. Defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court’s questions."Source
— The lawyers
(A quote from the lawyers' memorandum arguing they had no initial reason to doubt Juror Conrad's truthfulness.)
DOJ-OGR-00010133.jpg
Quote #2
"ascertain from each of the defendants . . . whether any of them were aware of the disturbing things that have been revealed by defense on this motion concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]."Source
— The Court
(The Court's stated purpose for the July 15 telephone conference.)
DOJ-OGR-00010133.jpg
Quote #3
"We were not aware of the facts that have come to light, and I think if your Honor deems it appropriate, we can submit a letter."Source
— Trzaskoma
(Response to the Court's inquiry during the July 15 telephone conference.)
DOJ-OGR-00010133.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document