DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
439 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
439 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein |
Appears as a name at the top of the transcript page.
|
|
| Catherine Conrad | Potential Juror |
Subject of the testimony; there was a concern she might be a suspended lawyer.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as the person who asked about doing further research on Catherine Conrad.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Mentioned in reference to their voir dire responses, which were reviewed in relation to Catherine Conrad.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Appears at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that produced the document.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A witness (A) is questioned (by Q) about the decision not to investigate potential juror Catherine Conrad further after concerns were raised about her being a suspended lawyer.
Unnamed Witness (A)
Unnamed Questioner (Q)
A discussion was held regarding Catherine Conrad's potential status as a suspended lawyer, prompted by Ms. Trzaskoma. The group reviewed voir dire responses and decided against further research.
Unnamed Witness (A)
Ms. Trzaskoma
Relationships (1)
Ms. Trzaskoma raised an issue with the witness and they discussed the matter of juror Catherine Conrad.
Key Quotes (3)
"All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name Catherine Conrad."Source
— Witness (A)
(Describing the initial information received about Catherine Conrad.)
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
Quote #1
"We concluded that we did not believe they were the same person and we decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that point."Source
— Witness (A)
(Explaining the outcome of the discussion about Catherine Conrad.)
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
Quote #2
"It was just inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would she lie about her highest level of education?"Source
— Witness (A)
(Providing the reasoning for believing Catherine Conrad was not the suspended lawyer in question.)
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,437 characters)
Case 2:20-cr-00038-DCN Document 646-22 Filed 02/22/22 Page 124 of 330
A-5797
A-5797
340
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.
2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name
3 Catherine Conrad.
4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that
5 demonstrated that to her?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out
8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine
9 Conrad that she had found information about?
10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look
12 into this?
13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,
14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded
15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we
16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that
17 point.
18 Q. Well, you say "we discussed." Tell us your best
19 recollection what was said.
20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we
21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir
22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the
23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just
24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would
25 she lie about her highest level of education?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.
2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name
3 Catherine Conrad.
4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that
5 demonstrated that to her?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out
8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine
9 Conrad that she had found information about?
10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look
12 into this?
13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,
14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded
15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we
16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that
17 point.
18 Q. Well, you say "we discussed." Tell us your best
19 recollection what was said.
20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we
21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir
22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the
23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just
24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would
25 she lie about her highest level of education?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010080
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document