DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
434 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / deposition
File Size:
434 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. It features testimony from a witness named Edelstein regarding a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1. They debated whether the juror was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad but concluded at the time that it was 'inconceivable' based on voir dire responses, specifically regarding education.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness/Deponent |
Answering questions regarding the vetting of a juror.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Subject of Inquiry |
A suspended lawyer whom the defense team investigated as potentially being Juror No. 1.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma | Attorney/Colleague |
Raised the issue of Catherine Conrad and discussed the possibility of further research with the witness.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
The juror whose identity and honesty during voir dire were being scrutinized.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely SDNY (Southern District of New York) based on the court reporters' name.
|
Relationships (2)
Shared discussion regarding strategy and research on a juror.
The team investigated if Juror No. 1 was actually the suspended lawyer Catherine Conrad.
Key Quotes (2)
"We concluded that we did not believe they were the same person and we decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that point."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
Quote #1
"It was just inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would she lie about her highest level of education?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,435 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 142 of 130
A-5797
A-5797
340
C2GFDAU3 Edelstein
1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.
2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name
3 Catherine Conrad.
4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that
5 demonstrated that to her?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out
8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine
9 Conrad that she had found information about?
10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look
12 into this?
13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,
14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded
15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we
16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that
17 point.
18 Q. Well, you say "we discussed." Tell us your best
19 recollection what was said.
20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we
21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir
22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the
23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just
24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would
25 she lie about her highest level of education?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009401
C2GFDAU3 Edelstein
1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.
2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name
3 Catherine Conrad.
4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that
5 demonstrated that to her?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out
8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine
9 Conrad that she had found information about?
10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.
11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look
12 into this?
13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,
14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded
15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we
16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that
17 point.
18 Q. Well, you say "we discussed." Tell us your best
19 recollection what was said.
20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we
21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir
22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the
23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just
24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would
25 she lie about her highest level of education?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009401
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document