DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg

1010 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court transcript
File Size: 1010 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding their service in a trial involving defendant David Parse. The questioning probes Conrad's impartiality, focusing on a post-verdict letter, their initial belief in the defendant's guilt, and whether their own past criminal history (including arrests for DUI and shoplifting) biased their judgment. Conrad consistently affirms that their final decision was based solely on the evidence and Judge Pauley's legal instructions, and that their personal history did not affect their ability to be fair and impartial.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Conrad Witness / Juror
The individual being cross-examined about their role as a juror in a previous trial.
Paul M. Daugerdas Defendant
Named in the case title 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'.
Mr. Gair Attorney
Mentioned as an attorney who previously questioned Conrad about statements made regarding David Parse and about Conra...
David Parse Defendant
A defendant in the trial where Conrad served as a juror. Conrad initially believed Mr. Parse should have been found g...
Mr. Schectman Attorney
Mentioned as an attorney who, along with Mr. Gair, questioned Conrad about their prior criminal cases.
Judge Pauley Judge
The judge who provided legal instructions and a jury charge in the trial where Conrad was a juror.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Government agency
The plaintiff in the case, as indicated by the case title.
IRS Government agency
Mentioned in the context of IRS agents, whom Conrad confirmed they did not know.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS Company
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.

Timeline (4 events)

2012-02-15
Cross-examination of witness/juror Conrad.
Conrad Questioning Attorney
A trial in which Conrad served as a juror and David Parse was a defendant.
Conrad and other jurors deliberated on the guilt of Mr. Parse.
Conrad other jurors
Conrad was arrested for various offenses including driving under the influence, harassment, contempt, shoplifting, and disorderly conduct.
Winslow, Arizona

Locations (1)

Location Context
Mentioned as the location where Conrad was arrested for a disorderly conduct offense.

Relationships (4)

Conrad Juror-Defendant David Parse
Conrad served as a juror in a trial where David Parse was a defendant. Conrad initially believed Parse was guilty but changed their mind based on the judge's instructions.
Conrad Juror-Judge Judge Pauley
Conrad received legal instructions and a jury charge from Judge Pauley during the trial, which Conrad states formed the basis of their final conclusion.
Conrad Witness-Attorney Mr. Gair
Mr. Gair is an attorney who questioned Conrad about their role in the trial and their past.
Conrad Witness-Attorney Mr. Schectman
Mr. Schectman is an attorney who questioned Conrad about their past criminal cases.

Key Quotes (3)

"Q. 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? A. 100 percent. Correct."
Source
— Questioning Attorney and Conrad (Conrad affirming that their final verdict was based on the judge's instructions and was without bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg
Quote #1
"Q. 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? A. Absolutely not."
Source
— Questioning Attorney and Conrad (Conrad denying that their personal history as a criminal defendant affected their impartiality as a juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg
Quote #2
"Q. And is it also fair, Ms. Conrad, that your involvement in those criminal cases did not cause you to be biased in one matter or another against any party or any attorney in this case? A. That's correct."
Source
— Questioning Attorney and Conrad (Conrad confirming that their prior criminal cases, which were unrelated to the trial's subject matter, did not cause any bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document