DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
476 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
476 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Parse |
Mentioned in the context of a question about whether he knew he was defrauding the government.
|
|
| Catherine Conrad |
Identified as the author of a juror's note being discussed in the argument.
|
|
| Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker, indicating the person presiding over the legal proceeding.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned multiple times in the context of being defrauded and its legal position.
|
| Third Circuit | government agency |
Referenced in relation to a case law (the Breakiron case) relevant to the argument.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal proceeding, whose position is being questioned by the speaker.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A speaker, likely a lawyer, is presenting an argument to a judge ('your Honor') regarding the interpretation of a juror's note and its implications for prejudice in a case involving a Mr. Parse.
court
Mr. Parse (subject)
Catherine Conrad (subject)
Honor (presiding judge)
unnamed speaker (lawyer)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Part of the name of the court reporting company, indicating the jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (2)
The speaker addresses the 'Honor' directly, which is standard courtroom protocol for a lawyer addressing a judge.
The speaker is arguing a legal point concerning Mr. Parse's knowledge and actions, suggesting a lawyer-client or lawyer-subject relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was defrauding the government."Source
— unnamed speaker
(The speaker is framing the central issue of the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #1
"We ended up with an argument about the contents of the note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether there was prejudice here."Source
— unnamed speaker
(Summarizing the current point of contention in the legal proceeding.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #2
"All of this began with the government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits."Source
— unnamed speaker
(Explaining the origin of the argument and citing a specific legal rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,637 characters)
Case 3:20-cr-00083-AEN Document 164-3-20 Filed 03/23/22 Page 856 of 1717
A-5928
A-5928
26
CAC3PARC
1 But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was
2 defrauding the government. Right.
3 Look, the avalanche of work here was in December. But
4 the question is, if you made a mistake, like in my example, can
5 you undo it. And you have to appreciate what the government
6 has said to you today. It has essentially said if it is a
7 broker's mistake, like in my hypothetical, then maybe a
8 reasonable broker could think you could undo it. But if it is
9 a lawyer's mistake, you can't. And that's a very different
10 version of the annual accounting rule that I've ever heard
11 before. Right. And if my hypothetical is one in which a
12 reasonable broker could think leave it up to the tax lawyers, I
13 am not sure what happened in this case isn't in that same
14 category.
15 We ended up with an argument about the contents of the
16 note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether
17 there was prejudice here. All of this began with the
18 government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits.
19 The one thing I know, and the Third Circuit case in Breakiron
20 is quite good on talking about whether one looks at this
21 subjectively or objectively, you can't draw inferences from
22 that juror's note in deciding whether there was prejudice here
23 for two reasons. One, 606(b) precludes it, and two, that note
24 was written by Catherine Conrad and I still don't think the
25 United States wants to be standing up in a court and saying
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
1 But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was
2 defrauding the government. Right.
3 Look, the avalanche of work here was in December. But
4 the question is, if you made a mistake, like in my example, can
5 you undo it. And you have to appreciate what the government
6 has said to you today. It has essentially said if it is a
7 broker's mistake, like in my hypothetical, then maybe a
8 reasonable broker could think you could undo it. But if it is
9 a lawyer's mistake, you can't. And that's a very different
10 version of the annual accounting rule that I've ever heard
11 before. Right. And if my hypothetical is one in which a
12 reasonable broker could think leave it up to the tax lawyers, I
13 am not sure what happened in this case isn't in that same
14 category.
15 We ended up with an argument about the contents of the
16 note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether
17 there was prejudice here. All of this began with the
18 government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits.
19 The one thing I know, and the Third Circuit case in Breakiron
20 is quite good on talking about whether one looks at this
21 subjectively or objectively, you can't draw inferences from
22 that juror's note in deciding whether there was prejudice here
23 for two reasons. One, 606(b) precludes it, and two, that note
24 was written by Catherine Conrad and I still don't think the
25 United States wants to be standing up in a court and saying
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010183
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document