DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00380-PAEum Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 67
A-5633

February 15, 2012
C2frdau3 Trzaskoma - redirect Page 93

1 A. No. I actually thought that the more
2 was that the Westlaw report was conflating two people, two
3 people named Catherine Conrad, one who was our juror and one
4 who was the suspended lawyer.
5 Q. During your conversation with Ms. Edelstein and Ms. Brune
6 or at any point afterwards, did anyone encourage you from
7 pursuing any additional information about Catherine Conrad or
8 the Westlaw report that had been sent to you?
9 A. No. I believe, as I told you earlier, at the conclusion of
10 my discussion with Ms. Edelstein and Ms. Brune I said something
11 along the lines of, do we need to do anything further, and Ms.
12 Brune said, no, just leave it. Based on that, I called Mr.
13 Benhamou.
14 I went to my children's school to pick them up for the
15 first time in many months, maybe years, and on my way to pick
16 them up at school, my recollection is I called Mr. Benhamou to
17 ask him whether he had gotten the lawsuit. He said that he
18 hadn't, that they couldn't find it online, and if we wanted to
19 get it, our managing clerk would have to go to the Bronx in the
20 morning. I said, we don't think it is here, so you can stand
21 down.
22 Q. Did at any point anyone suggest that you not send any
23 emails about Conrad any further?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You said that you weren't aware of any other juror

C2frdau3 Trzaskoma - redirect Page 94

1 misconduct case where the lies of this magnitude were involved.
2 Do you remember that testimony?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Do you recall on direct you testified that in your mind on
5 May 12th there were two possibilities: There was either the
6 possibility that Conrad had lied during voir dire or the
7 information you had was for the wrong person?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it fair to say that in your mind on May 12th they were
10 not just lies that you were contemplating but in your mind
11 unprecedented lies as one possibility?
12 A. I think that what I understood Mr. Shechtman to be asking
13 me was about the totality of Ms. Conrad's lies. I can tell you
14 that on May 12th I certainly did not contemplate that Ms.
15 Conrad was not only a suspended lawyer but was on criminal
16 probation, had been arrested numerous times, had a bench
17 warrant for her arrest, was a severe alcoholic, and was married
18 to a man who himself had served 7 years in a New Jersey state
19 prison. That never entered my head.
20 Q. Those facts that you had you didn't have during the trial,
21 right?
22 A. We did not.
23 Q. If you had researched Ms. Conrad's civil lawsuit, you might
24 have learned about them during the trial, right?
25 A. It's possible, but it took us a long time to put things

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
Trzaskoma - redirect Page 95

1 together. And we were benefited greatly by the fact that Ms.
2 Conrad had included her phone number at the top of her letter
3 to Mr. Okula.
4 Q. You are conflating two issues. My question is about the
5 civil lawsuit. You had a chance to review those documents
6 after the trial, right?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. You know that in Ms. Conrad's testimony in that suit she
9 says she has a law degree, right?
10 A. I did. But it took me days to pull all that together and
11 to find that in the files.
12 Q. Weren't there several days between May 12th and the jury
13 verdict?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. With respect to the motion that you filed, did you make a
16 conscious decision not to disclose the information that you had
17 in your possession during the trial in your motion?
18 A. No, it was not, in my mind.
19 MR. HERNANDEZ: May I have a moment, your Honor?
20 THE COURT: Yes. Take your time.
21 MR. HERNANDEZ: No further questions, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Shechtman.
23 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. SHECHTMAN:
25 Q. Ms. Trzaskoma, at any time were you trying to sandbag the

C2frdau3 Trzaskoma - recross Page 96

1 Court or plant error in the record as to Juror No. 1, Ms.
2 Conrad?
3 A. Absolutely not.
4 MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions.
5 THE COURT: Ms. Trzaskoma, I have a question for you.
6 On the third day of jury deliberations, May 16th, this Court
7 was confronted with a juror who needed to have an emergency
8 medical procedure. After conferring with all counsel and over
9 the government's objection, I excused Juror No. 11, replaced
10 Juror No. 11 with an alternate, and instructed the jury to
11 restart anew their jury deliberations. During that entire
12 episode did you ever revisit the question of Juror No. 1 and
13 someone other than who she
14 said she was in voir dire?
15 THE WITNESS: I did not. I genuinely believed that
16 Juror No. 1 was who she said she was.
17 THE COURT: Any further inquiry based upon the Court's
18 inquiry?
19 MR. HERNANDEZ: No, your Honor.
20 MR. SKLARSKY: No, your Honor.
21 MR. SHECHTMAN: No, your Honor.
22 MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor.
23 MS. MCCARTHY: No, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Ms. Trzaskoma, you are excused as a
25 witness. You may step down.

Page 93 - Page 96 (24) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
DOJ-OGR-00009237