DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAEumDocument 616 Filed 02/24/12 Page 16 of 67
A-5634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,

C2frdau3 Page 97
1 (Witness excused)
2 THE COURT: Before the defendants call Juror No. 1, I
3 have before me an application on behalf of Juror No. 1
4 concerning closure of the courtroom. I have reviewed the
5 letter submissions of the parties. Ms. Sternheim, do you wish
6 to be heard further on that application?
7 MS. STERNHEIM: Very briefly, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Please. Take the podium.
9 MS. STERNHEIM: I am aware that aspects of Ms.
10 Conrad's alcohol dependence are in the record, as we have heard
11 today. However, I maintain that she does have the right to
12 confidentiality regarding her condition and any treatment she
13 may have received. I do not suggest that it should not be an
14 area of inquiry, but I don't believe that it needs to be an
15 area disclosed publicly. The record can be created so that all
16 the parties of interest in this matter have the facts that they
17 need to make their respective arguments.
18 The other part of my letter, which I don't have with
19 me for the moment, concerns aspects -- does the Court have the
20 letter there? May I see it? Or does any counsel have a copy?
21 THE COURT: I've got it.
22 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
23 THE COURT: These letters will be docketed and filed
24 if they haven't already been.
25 MS. STERNHEIM: The other aspects were HIPAA concerns

C2frdau3 Page 98
1 regarding her personal medical conditions.
2 With regard to inquiry concerning the disciplinary
3 committee, my request is based on the fact that disciplinary
4 proceedings, at least in the First Department, are not public
5 proceedings, and it is my understanding that sealed records
6 were unsealed for the purpose of this matter. However, again,
7 that I believe was so that the parties would have opportunity
8 to make their record here. I still maintain because it is a
9 pending matter in the First Department, it should not be opened
10 to the public.
11 Once again, I am not stating in any way that counsel
12 for either party should not be permitted to inquire. I
13 understand the relevance of it. However, again, I do not
14 believe that the inquiry into a matter which in and of itself
15 was a closed proceeding, although revealed for purposes of
16 this, and still pending should be a matter dealt with in open
17 court.
18 So, my request again is should counsel wish to inquire
19 into the underlying aspects of an alcohol dependency and the
20 disciplinary committee and the proceedings, that that be a
21 matter that is not for public consideration.
22 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim. Is there any
23 other matter that you want to bring to the Court's attention
24 before the witness is called?
25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. In connection with

February 15, 2012
C2frdau3 Page 99
1 my letter, which I know the Court has furnished to counsel, I
2 informed the Court prior to today that on advice of counsel Ms.
3 Conrad will be asserting her Fifth Amendment right against
4 self-incrimination. She will be doing that once called into
5 this courtroom. Obviously, if she is granted immunity, she
6 will answer the questions as ordered.
7 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim.
8 Does any other counsel wish to be heard further on the
9 question of the sealing of the courtroom?
10 MR. GAIR: No, your Honor.
11 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor.
12 MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor.
13 A VOICE: Your Honor, may I be heard?
14 THE COURT: It's really not necessary. Have a seat.
15 By letter dated February 8, 2012, Catherine Conrad
16 requests that any questioning during this hearing concerning
17 her medical suspension in proceedings held before the
18 departmental disciplinary committee of the First Judicial
19 Department be conducted in a closed courtroom.
20 A party seeking to close the courtroom to the public
21 must demonstrate "an overriding interest that is likely to be
22 prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to
23 protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable
24 alternatives to closing the proceeding, and the trial court
25 must make findings adequate to support the closure." Presley

C2frdau3 Page 100
1 v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct 721, 724 (2010) quoting Walker v. Georgia,
2 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984).
3 The information Ms. Conrad seeks to shield from public
4 view has already been disseminated. But the various court
5 filings in support of the defendants' motion for a new trial
6 include, among other things, Conrad's disciplinary records and
7 related court filings and her psychological evaluations. Given
8 these prior disclosures, there is no overriding interest of Ms.
9 Conrad that is likely to be prejudiced. Moreover, the rights
10 of the defendants in this criminal case to a public proceeding
11 trump Ms. Conrad's own parochial interest. Accordingly, her
12 application is denied.
13 I'd ask at this time that the marshals bring Ms.
14 Conrad out.
15 MR. OKULA: Your Honor, before they bring her out, may
16 I be heard briefly?
17 THE COURT: Certainly.
18 MR. OKULA: I have spoken with Mr. Gair, and we
19 understand that the procedure is that Mr. Gair is going to call
20 Ms. Conrad and that she is going to invoke her Fifth Amendment
21 rights. Your Honor has before you an application that we have
22 submitted requesting that she be compelled to testify and be
23 given use immunity in connection with that testimony.
24 I want to be perfectly clear that in connection with
25 this hearing, although Mr. Gair is calling Ms. Conrad as a

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
(25) Page 97 - Page 100
DOJ-OGR-00009238