This document is a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely Juror Catherine Conrad), who admits to deliberately lying to Judge Pauley during jury selection (voir dire) about her criminal history. Specifically, she concealed an August 2007 arrest in Winslow, Arizona, for disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute with her husband. While found in an Epstein-related file dump (DOJ-OGR), this document appears to be legal precedent regarding juror misconduct/perjury, likely referenced in appeals for the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness / Juror |
Being questioned about lying during voir dire regarding her criminal history.
|
| Paul M. Daugerdas | Defendant |
Named in the case caption (United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas).
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
The judge who conducted the original voir dire where Conrad lied.
|
| Conrad's Husband | Family Member |
Involved in a domestic incident in Winslow, AZ; Conrad also failed to disclose his arrest history.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters |
Court reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| United States of America |
Plaintiff in the case caption.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Conrad was arrested for disorderly conduct.
|
|
|
Location where a judge ruled on the validity of the Arizona warrant during a personal injury case.
|
"Q. When you did you make the deliberate decision not to reveal your criminal arrests and convictions? ... A. Monday, March 1st... Judge Pauley started the questioning the second day... It was probably that evening between the 1st and the 2nd."Source
"Q. That's why you lied about it? A. Yes."Source
"Q. Of course, because you called the police and told them that your husband was beating you, but you ended up being the one who got arrested, correct? A. Yes, sir."Source
"A. I wasn't really thinking about that specific instance... It was part of the larger decision not to mention any of the arrests, sir."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (4,712 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document