This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding their service in a trial involving defendant David Parse. The questioning probes Conrad's impartiality, focusing on a post-verdict letter, their initial belief in the defendant's guilt, and whether their own past criminal history (including arrests for DUI and shoplifting) biased their judgment. Conrad consistently affirms that their final decision was based solely on the evidence and Judge Pauley's legal instructions, and that their personal history did not affect their ability to be fair and impartial.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness / Juror |
The individual being cross-examined about their role as a juror in a previous trial.
|
| Paul M. Daugerdas | Defendant |
Named in the case title 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'.
|
| Mr. Gair | Attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney who previously questioned Conrad about statements made regarding David Parse and about Conra...
|
| David Parse | Defendant |
A defendant in the trial where Conrad served as a juror. Conrad initially believed Mr. Parse should have been found g...
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney who, along with Mr. Gair, questioned Conrad about their prior criminal cases.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
The judge who provided legal instructions and a jury charge in the trial where Conrad was a juror.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | Government agency |
The plaintiff in the case, as indicated by the case title.
|
| IRS | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of IRS agents, whom Conrad confirmed they did not know.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location where Conrad was arrested for a disorderly conduct offense.
|
"Q. So is it fair to say that when you personally deliberated with respect to Mr. Parse, you reached your conclusion based on the legal instruction that Judge Pauley gave you and without bias to any side. Fair? A. 100 percent. Correct."Source
"Q. Did the fact that you were a criminal defendant in a prior case affect you from fairly and impartially judging the evidence in this case and weighing and applying Judge Pauley's legal instruction? A. Absolutely not."Source
"Q. And is it also fair, Ms. Conrad, that your involvement in those criminal cases did not cause you to be biased in one matter or another against any party or any attorney in this case? A. That's correct."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (4,909 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document