DOJ-OGR-00009476.jpg
537 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
537 KB
Summary
This is an affidavit from David Parse, a defendant in case S3 09 Cr. 581 in the Southern District of New York, filed on August 7, 2012. Parse states that he only became aware of a potential issue regarding a juror named Conrad being a suspended lawyer after his legal team, the Brune firm, had already filed a motion for a new trial. He specifies learning this information after a conference call on July 15, 2011, and recalls his lawyer, Theresa Trzaskoma, had previously dismissed a concern about a prospective juror having the same name during jury selection.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DAVID PARSE | Defendant, Affiant |
The person submitting the affidavit, and a defendant in the case.
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Listed as a defendant in the case caption.
|
| DONNA GUERIN | Defendant |
Listed as a defendant in the case caption.
|
| DENIS FIELD | Defendant |
Listed as a defendant in the case caption.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma | Lawyer |
Identified as a lawyer at the Brune firm who spoke about a prospective juror and later considered a possibility regar...
|
| Conrad | Suspended lawyer |
Mentioned as a suspended lawyer whose name resurfaced as an issue prior to jury deliberations.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Mentioned in the context of Ms. Trzaskoma considering a possibility about them on May 12, 2011.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | government agency |
The court where the case is being heard.
|
| Brune firm | company |
The law firm representing David Parse.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2011-05-12
Ms. Trzaskoma considered the possibility that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer named Conrad.
2011-07-15
A conference call took place, after which David Parse learned new information about the juror issue.
David Parse
Jury selection for the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
David Parse
Theresa Trzaskoma
David Parse met with the Brune lawyers to discuss possible post-trial motions and appellate issues.
David Parse
Brune lawyers
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction of the United States District Court mentioned in the document.
|
|
|
Location where the affidavit is sworn.
|
|
|
Location where the affidavit is sworn.
|
Relationships (2)
David Parse identifies Theresa Trzaskoma as one of the lawyers at the Brune firm, which was representing him. This indicates a client-attorney relationship.
David Parse
→
professional
→
Brune lawyers
The document states, "I met with the Brune lawyers to discuss possible post-trial motions," confirming their role as his legal counsel.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,435 characters)
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 544 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
§
§ ECF CASE
v.
§
§ Case No. S3 09 Cr. 581 (WHP)
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS,
§
DONNA GUERIN,
§ AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID PARSE
DENIS FIELD, and
§
DAVID PARSE,
§
§
Defendants.
§
§
§ ECF CASE
v.
§
§ Case No. S3 09 Cr. 581 (WHP)
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS,
§
DONNA GUERIN,
§ AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID PARSE
DENIS FIELD, and
§
DAVID PARSE,
§
§
Defendants.
§
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
DAVID PARSE, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. My name is David Parse, and I am a defendant in the above-captioned case.
2. During jury selection (or shortly thereafter), I heard one of the lawyers at the Brune firm (I believe it was Theresa Trzaskoma) say that there was a prospective juror (or a juror) who had the same name as a suspended attorney but that it was not the same person. I cannot recall if the lawyer was speaking to me or if I overheard her speaking to someone else.
3. A week after the verdict, I met with the Brune lawyers to discuss possible post-trial motions and appellate issues. The possibility of a juror misconduct issue was not raised.
4. It was not until after the Brune firm filed its motion for a new trial that I learned that prior to jury deliberations the issue of Conrad being a suspended lawyer had resurfaced. More precisely, to the best of my memory, it was after the July 15, 2011 conference call that I learned (i) that on May 12, 2011, Ms. Trzaskoma had considered the possibility that Juror No. 1
3689133.1
DOJ-OGR-00009476
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document