DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg

945 KB

Extraction Summary

5
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court transcript (exhibit)
File Size: 945 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript from the trial *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN / Document 616-1), dated February 15, 2012. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely a former juror, Catherine Conrad), who is being questioned about discrepancies in her stated residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) and potential bias. This document was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330), likely by the defense to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and false statements during voir dire.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Conrad Witness
Being questioned about her residence and previous testimony/affidavits (likely Catherine Conrad, a juror in the Dauge...
Paul M. Daugerdas Defendant
Named in the case caption: United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas.
Judge Pauley Judge
Mentioned as the judge who asked the witness questions previously.
Mr. Okula Attorney
Raises an objection during the questioning.
The Court Judge
Sustains the objection.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States of America
Plaintiff in the case.
First Department
Disciplinary committee where an affidavit was filed.
Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department
Specific body where the affidavit was filed.
Southern District Reporters
Transcription service listed in footer.

Timeline (3 events)

February 15, 2012
Court hearing/testimony captured in this transcript
Courtroom
February 28th
Filing of affidavit
Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department
March 1
Voir dire (jury selection questioning)
Courtroom

Locations (4)

Location Context
Actual residence of the witness.
Residence claimed by the witness during voir dire.
Specific address listed in the witness's affidavit.
Origin of the questioner (per the witness's comment).

Relationships (1)

Conrad Juror/Defendant Paul M. Daugerdas
Conrad refers to 'Your client is still guilty as charged with our verdict'.

Key Quotes (5)

"Your client is still guilty as charged with our verdict, and that's it."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
Quote #1
"Myself and eleven other unbiased jurors determined that."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
Quote #2
"Probably because it was a little more reputable."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
Quote #3
"Why did it matter to you that you portray yourself in this court as living in a more affluent area than you actually lived in?"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
Quote #4
"I reside at 2385 Barker Avenue, apartment 3H, Bronx, New York, 10467"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,389 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 67
A-5647
February 15, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 149
1 A. I hope so.
2 Q. Let me --
3 A. These are semantics, sir. Your client is still guilty as
4 charged with our verdict, and that's it.
5 Q. Well, I think --
6 A. Myself and eleven other unbiased jurors determined that.
7 Q. Do you have a better handle on what the word "bias" means
8 than you do on what the word "irrational" means?
9 A. Absolutely. I've been a plaintiff and a defendant and I've
10 also represented plaintiffs and defendants.
11 Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that you resided at both
12 places, both the Bronx and Bronxville, when you were questioned
13 on voir dire on March 1?
14 A. If that was the date, yes.
15 (Continued next page)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 151
1 Yes, that's the date it was signed and notarized.
2 Q. This was a statement that was sworn by you before you
3 submitted it to the First Department, correct, before you
4 submitted it to the disciplinary authorities?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. They asked you the same question Judge Pauley asked you
7 three or four days later, didn't they?
8 A. I'm not specifically sure.
9 Q. Let's look at the second page. Page 2, item number 2, asks
10 for your residence, and it says, "I reside at 2385 Barker
11 Avenue, apartment 3H, Bronx, New York, 10467," correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When you were asked that question on February 26th, the
14 date you executed the affidavit, you lived on Barker Avenue in
15 the Bronx, but a few days later, on March 2nd, when Judge
16 Pauley asked you the identical question, you resided in
17 Bronxville in Westchester, correct?
18 A. Yes, I answered that, correct.
19 Q. Why?
20 A. Because I just thought of myself having two residences.
21 Q. Why didn't you put them both down?
22 A. I really don't know. At that time I don't know.
23 Q. Why did you put the Bronx down on one and tell Judge Pauley
24 Bronx Village on the other.
25 A. Bronxville.
C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 150
1 Q. Look at the heading "March 2nd." Do you see the heading on
2 the transcript "March 2, 2011"?
3 A. Oh, yes.
4 Q. You were asked where you resided, and you said you resided
5 in Bronxville, but you actually resided in two places?
6 A. Both, yes.
7 Q. You resided both places, I see. Now, you filed two days
8 earlier a sworn affidavit with the First Department
9 disciplinary committee, is that correct?
10 A. Yes. I don't know if it was two days prior, but around
11 there.
12 Q. They asked you where you lived, didn't they?
13 A. I don't specifically recall.
14 Q. Let's see if we can help.
15 A. Thank you.
16 Q. If you would look at Exhibit 21, tab 21 in your book. Is
17 this the affidavit you filed in support of your application to
18 be reinstated to the practice of law?
19 A. It seems to be, yes, sir.
20 Q. Was it filed on February 28th in the Supreme Court
21 Appellate Division First Department?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was the affidavit executed by you two days earlier, on
24 February 26th?
25 A. Let me get there. If that's the date I signed, it is.
C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 152
1 Q. Bronxville.
2 A. Probably because it was a little more reputable.
3 Q. Were you embarrassed by living in the Bronx?
4 A. No.
5 Q. What does the fact that Bronxville is more reputable than
6 the Bronx have to do with anything?
7 A. The average household income.
8 Q. Why did it matter to you that you portray yourself in this
9 court as living in a more affluent area than you actually lived
10 in?
11 A. You're from Chicago. You don't really know that. So I
12 don't know how to answer your question.
13 Q. You don't know how to answer my question because you don't
14 know what I don't know?
15 A. I don't know how to answer that even.
16 Q. That I'm not surprised by.
17 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sustained. Put a question to the witness.
19 The last question was unanswerable.
20 Q. Ms. Conrad, was it your intention to portray yourself to
21 this Court as living in a more affluent area than you actually
22 lived in?
23 A. No, not really. No, I never thought of it like that.
24 Q. Isn't that what you just said?
25 A. Bronxville is an affluent community. My parents are there,
Page 149 - Page 152 (38) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
DOJ-OGR-00009251

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document