DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This legal document analyzes statements made by defense lawyers in a memorandum regarding their investigation of a juror named Conrad. The author, likely a judge, concludes that while the lawyers' phrasing could have been clearer and may have led to unintended inferences, their statements were not knowingly false or a violation of ethical rules. The analysis specifically addresses a July 15 telephone conference where a lawyer, Trzaskoma, denied prior awareness of certain facts, a statement the author finds consistent with the lawyers' overall position.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
Presiding over the case, held a telephone conference, and received motions and letters from the lawyers.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the 'New York Rules' governing ethical behavior for lawyers.
|
Relationships (2)
The lawyers investigated Juror Conrad after receiving a letter that caused them concern, and later filed a motion related to their findings.
The lawyers
→
Professional / Legal
→
The Court
The lawyers submitted a memorandum to the Court and participated in a telephone conference initiated by the Court, where their conduct and statements were under scrutiny.
Key Quotes (4)
"The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial (‘always head down, taking notes’), caused defendants concern and prompted them to investigate."Source
— The lawyers
(A quote from the lawyers' memorandum explaining why they began investigating Juror Conrad.)
DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
Quote #1
"This is not a situation where Conrad disclosed sufficient information to warrant inquiry by counsel. Defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court’s questions."Source
— The lawyers
(A quote from the lawyers' memorandum arguing they had no initial reason to doubt Juror Conrad's voir dire answers.)
DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
Quote #2
"ascertain from each of the defendants . . . whether any of them were aware of the disturbing things that have been revealed by defense on this motion concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]."Source
— The Court
(The stated purpose of the July 15 telephone conference, as articulated by the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
Quote #3
"We were not aware of the facts that have come to light, and I think if your Honor deems it appropriate, we can submit a letter."Source
— Trzaskoma
(The response given to the Court during the July 15 telephone conference regarding knowledge of facts about Juror Conrad.)
DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,458 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 35 of 117
A-5850
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 8 of 29
A-5850
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 8 of 29
23. The lawyers wrote: “The tone and content of the letter, which were in sharp contrast to the image Conrad had projected through the trial (‘always head down, taking notes’), caused defendants concern and prompted them to investigate.” Memorandum at 9. And they later wrote: “This is not a situation where Conrad disclosed sufficient information to warrant inquiry by counsel. Defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying in response to each of the Court’s questions.” Memorandum at 32, n.13 (internal citation and parenthetical quote omitted).
24. In my opinion, these statements should be seen as true, not merely literally true in a hypertechnical or crabbed sense of the word, but true as reasonably read. They do not become untrue because a reader may draw a false inference that the lawyers did not intend. The juror’s letter did cause concern and did prompt an investigation, as the first quotation in the memorandum states. That statement does not disclaim a prior search, whether that prior search is called an investigation or something else. I believe that focus on the word “investigate,” which is not a term of art, would be misguided here. The sentence correctly describes what the letter caused the lawyers to do.
25. The second quote focuses on the voir dire in March and is also true as reasonably read. The lawyers had concluded that the order suspending a lawyer with the same name as juror Conrad was not a “basis” for an inquiry into the truthfulness of juror Conrad’s answers. Just the opposite. Her voir dire answers, in their view, dispelled reason for inquiry. A suspended lawyer would not lie under oath at voir dire, they reasoned, given the consequences to the lawyer’s ability ever to regain admission to practice. In my opinion, this conclusion was compelling.
26. It is also my opinion that the July 8, 2011, memorandum, taken as a whole, does not show a “knowing[]” violation of the provisions of Rule 3.3. It is true that even when a lawyer does not have a duty to speak, if she does speak, she may not knowingly misrepresent to a court or adversary. But an unintended inference is not a misrepresentation. The lack of disclaimer language in the memorandum’s true statements – the fact that the lawyers, while focused on the new trial motion, did not anticipate what a reader might infer and what they did not mean to imply – is not an action that can support a finding of unethical behavior under the New York Rules.
27. The lawyers understandably now wish they had not included these passages as written. Greater focus might have led them to anticipate how others might read them differently than intended, and to omit them (they were unnecessary to the motion), rephrase them, or add the history of their earlier research.
The July 15 Telephone Conference
28. In the July 15 telephone conference, the Court said that it wanted to “ascertain from each of the defendants . . . whether any of them were aware of the disturbing things that have been revealed by defense on this motion concerning Juror Number One [Conrad].” The Court invited a response on the call or via letter. Trzaskoma’s response was:
Trzaskoma: We were not aware of the facts that have come to light, and I think if your Honor deems it appropriate, we can submit a letter.
DOJ-OGR-00009454
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document