DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
1.01 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.01 MB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness / Juror |
Referred to as Ms. Conrad, she is the witness being questioned throughout the transcript about her suitability and po...
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Named in the case title, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. He is also mentioned by name during qu...
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
An attorney conducting the direct examination of Ms. Conrad on pages 209 and 210.
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
An attorney who objects on page 209 and conducts the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad on pages 211 and 212.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge, who speaks multiple times to manage the proceedings, address attorneys, and rule on evidence.
|
| Ms. McCarthy | Attorney |
An attorney who addresses the court on page 211 regarding a housekeeping matter and the admission of exhibit PMD 23.
|
| Mr. Gair | Attorney |
Mentioned on page 211 by Ms. McCarthy as someone who 'offered some [evidence] at the end'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case, as stated in the document title.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | company |
The court reporting service credited at the bottom of the document.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2012-02-15
Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding her potential bias and failure to disclose personal history during jury selection.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned on page 210 in the context of an outstanding warrant for Ms. Conrad's husband.
|
Relationships (4)
Ms. Conrad
→
personal
→
Ms. Conrad's husband
Ms. Conrad states on page 210 that her husband 'seems to be a professional defendant' and has 'seven felony convictions' and an 'outstanding warrant from Arizona'.
Mr. Schectman is the attorney conducting the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, questioning her about her suitability as a juror.
Mr. Okula is the attorney conducting the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad.
Ms. Conrad
→
legal
→
Paul M. Daugerdas
Ms. Conrad was a juror in the case against the defendant, Paul Daugerdas. She states on page 212 that she had no personal bias against him and did not know him before the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"If they knew you were a suspended lawyer with a history of alcoholism with three misdemeanor convictions, with a husband who had seven felony convictions, who had involvement with licensing authorities, who had an outstanding warrant from Arizona, is it your view that these lawyers would have seen you as a different person, a far different person than the one you portrayed yourself to be?"Source
— Questioner (presumably Mr. Schectman)
(A question posed to Ms. Conrad on page 210 summarizing the information she allegedly failed to disclose during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #1
"Well, my husband seems to be a professional defendant, so I probably would have in their mind been a keeper for their side."Source
— Ms. Conrad
(Her response on page 210 when asked why the defense counsel would have been 'wild to have' her on the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #2
"So when you failed to tell the truth about your education and failed to reveal your criminal record and your status as a suspended attorney, it was not because you were biased against one party or another, is that correct?"Source
— MR. OKULA
(A question during cross-examination on page 212 to establish that Ms. Conrad's omissions were not due to bias for or against the prosecution or defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (5,009 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 67
A-5662
A-5662
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 209
1 Q. So those words are not an omission and they're not a lie,
2 they're true?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And that is to say that you thought that if these lawyers
5 knew who you actually were, and maybe if that judge knew who
6 you actually were, you wouldn't have been a juror in this case.
7 A. I knew I would be unbiased and fair.
8 Q. No, no. Let's try to answer some questions. You knew if
9 people knew who you actually were, if these lawyers knew who
10 you actually were, perhaps if that judge knew who you actually
11 were, you wouldn't have been a juror in this case? You knew
12 that.
13 A. Probably not, right.
14 Q. Let's not say probably. Let's see if we can get you to be
15 accurate.
16 THE COURT: Just stay back by the podium,
17 Mr. Schectman.
18 Q. Let's try to be accurate.
19 MR. OKULA: Judge, could we stop the speeching, have
20 him ask a question?
21 THE COURT: If you have an objection as to form, you
22 can state it. And Mr. Schectman is going to stay behind the
23 podium.
24 MR. SCHECTMAN: He is indeed.
25 Q. You knew that if these lawyers knew who you really were,
1 Q. So those words are not an omission and they're not a lie,
2 they're true?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And that is to say that you thought that if these lawyers
5 knew who you actually were, and maybe if that judge knew who
6 you actually were, you wouldn't have been a juror in this case.
7 A. I knew I would be unbiased and fair.
8 Q. No, no. Let's try to answer some questions. You knew if
9 people knew who you actually were, if these lawyers knew who
10 you actually were, perhaps if that judge knew who you actually
11 were, you wouldn't have been a juror in this case? You knew
12 that.
13 A. Probably not, right.
14 Q. Let's not say probably. Let's see if we can get you to be
15 accurate.
16 THE COURT: Just stay back by the podium,
17 Mr. Schectman.
18 Q. Let's try to be accurate.
19 MR. OKULA: Judge, could we stop the speeching, have
20 him ask a question?
21 THE COURT: If you have an objection as to form, you
22 can state it. And Mr. Schectman is going to stay behind the
23 podium.
24 MR. SCHECTMAN: He is indeed.
25 Q. You knew that if these lawyers knew who you really were,
C2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 210
1 there was no chance of your being on this jury?
2 A. I can't read people's minds, sir.
3 Q. Well, you read their minds well enough to keep an enormous
4 amount of information from them, didn't you?
5 A. I can't qualify enormous.
6 Q. Ms. Conrad, I don't want to go through it --
7 A. More likely than not I wouldn't have been picked, yes.
8 Q. Try a higher standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt you
9 wouldn't have been picked.
10 A. I can't put words into your mouth, I'm sorry.
11 Q. If they knew you were a suspended lawyer with a history of
12 alcoholism with three misdemeanor convictions, with a husband
13 who had seven felony convictions, who had involvement with
14 licensing authorities, who had an outstanding warrant from
15 Arizona, is it your view that these lawyers would have seen you
16 as a different person, a far different person than the one you
17 portrayed yourself to be?
18 A. I would think the defense counsel would be wild to have me.
19 Q. Why is that, Ms. Conrad?
20 A. Well, my husband seems to be a professional defendant, so I
21 probably would have in their mind been a keeper for their side.
22 Q. Because your view is they wanted people who were crooks
23 because they were crooks.
24 A. If that's connecting the dots logically.
25 MR. SCHECTMAN: I'll stop there.
1 there was no chance of your being on this jury?
2 A. I can't read people's minds, sir.
3 Q. Well, you read their minds well enough to keep an enormous
4 amount of information from them, didn't you?
5 A. I can't qualify enormous.
6 Q. Ms. Conrad, I don't want to go through it --
7 A. More likely than not I wouldn't have been picked, yes.
8 Q. Try a higher standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt you
9 wouldn't have been picked.
10 A. I can't put words into your mouth, I'm sorry.
11 Q. If they knew you were a suspended lawyer with a history of
12 alcoholism with three misdemeanor convictions, with a husband
13 who had seven felony convictions, who had involvement with
14 licensing authorities, who had an outstanding warrant from
15 Arizona, is it your view that these lawyers would have seen you
16 as a different person, a far different person than the one you
17 portrayed yourself to be?
18 A. I would think the defense counsel would be wild to have me.
19 Q. Why is that, Ms. Conrad?
20 A. Well, my husband seems to be a professional defendant, so I
21 probably would have in their mind been a keeper for their side.
22 Q. Because your view is they wanted people who were crooks
23 because they were crooks.
24 A. If that's connecting the dots logically.
25 MR. SCHECTMAN: I'll stop there.
C2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct February 15, 2012 Page 211
1 THE COURT: Any inquiry, Ms. McCarthy?
2 MS. McCARTHY: Your Honor, just a housekeeping matter.
3 I'm not sure if this is admitted. PMD 23. Has that been
4 offered in evidence yet? Mr. Gair offered some at the end.
5 I'm not sure.
6 THE COURT: No. You're offering PMD 23?
7 MS. McCARTHY: I am your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Any objection?
9 MR. OKULA: None, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: All right, PMD 23 is received in evidence.
11 (Exhibit PMD 23 received in evidence)
12 THE COURT: Mr. Okula, you may inquire.
13 MR. OKULA: Thank you, your Honor.
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. OKULA:
16 Q. Ms. Conrad, let me pick up where Mr. Schectman left off
17 where he asked you a question and you answered something about
18 connecting the dots about determining whether the defendants
19 were crooks. Do you remember that question?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you make up your mind about those defendants that you
22 found guilty prior to hearing all of the evidence and prior to
23 hearing the judge's instructions in this case?
24 A. Absolutely not.
25 Q. Ms. Conrad, you didn't attempt to try to get on this jury
1 THE COURT: Any inquiry, Ms. McCarthy?
2 MS. McCARTHY: Your Honor, just a housekeeping matter.
3 I'm not sure if this is admitted. PMD 23. Has that been
4 offered in evidence yet? Mr. Gair offered some at the end.
5 I'm not sure.
6 THE COURT: No. You're offering PMD 23?
7 MS. McCARTHY: I am your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Any objection?
9 MR. OKULA: None, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: All right, PMD 23 is received in evidence.
11 (Exhibit PMD 23 received in evidence)
12 THE COURT: Mr. Okula, you may inquire.
13 MR. OKULA: Thank you, your Honor.
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. OKULA:
16 Q. Ms. Conrad, let me pick up where Mr. Schectman left off
17 where he asked you a question and you answered something about
18 connecting the dots about determining whether the defendants
19 were crooks. Do you remember that question?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you make up your mind about those defendants that you
22 found guilty prior to hearing all of the evidence and prior to
23 hearing the judge's instructions in this case?
24 A. Absolutely not.
25 Q. Ms. Conrad, you didn't attempt to try to get on this jury
C2FFDAU6 Conrad - cross Page 212
1 in order to carry out some personal vendetta or agenda with
2 respect to the defendants, did you?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. And you didn't have any vendetta against the government,
5 correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And similarly, you didn't think that you would cast
8 yourself in a good light with the government if you voted in
9 favor of the government, notwithstanding what the evidence was,
10 is that correct?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. So when you failed to tell the truth about your education
13 and failed to reveal your criminal record and your status as a
14 suspended attorney, it was not because you were biased against
15 one party or another, is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Did you have any personal bias or animus against Paul
18 Daugerdas at the beginning of the case?
19 A. No, not at all. I didn't know anybody.
20 Q. So you didn't know any of the defendants, is it fair to say
21 that you had no personal bias or animus or feelings one way or
22 another with respect to them, is that fair?
23 A. That's absolutely correct.
24 Q. And it's true, isn't it, Ms. Conrad, that you hadn't made
25 up your mind once you were selected to be a juror in this case
1 in order to carry out some personal vendetta or agenda with
2 respect to the defendants, did you?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. And you didn't have any vendetta against the government,
5 correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And similarly, you didn't think that you would cast
8 yourself in a good light with the government if you voted in
9 favor of the government, notwithstanding what the evidence was,
10 is that correct?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. So when you failed to tell the truth about your education
13 and failed to reveal your criminal record and your status as a
14 suspended attorney, it was not because you were biased against
15 one party or another, is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Did you have any personal bias or animus against Paul
18 Daugerdas at the beginning of the case?
19 A. No, not at all. I didn't know anybody.
20 Q. So you didn't know any of the defendants, is it fair to say
21 that you had no personal bias or animus or feelings one way or
22 another with respect to them, is that fair?
23 A. That's absolutely correct.
24 Q. And it's true, isn't it, Ms. Conrad, that you hadn't made
25 up your mind once you were selected to be a juror in this case
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (53) Page 209 - Page 212
DOJ-OGR-00009266
DOJ-OGR-00009266
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document