DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
450 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
450 KB
Summary
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schoeman | Witness |
Under cross-examination regarding his analysis of Juror No. 1.
|
| Mr. Okula | Attorney |
Questioning the witness (Schoeman) and concluding his examination.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Subject of Inquiry |
Discussed as potentially being a 'suspended attorney' who claimed not to have gone to law school during voir dire.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Subject of Hypothetical/Example |
Name used by the attorney to illustrate a point about identifying people with the same name and middle initial.
|
| Judge | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Okula at the conclusion of questioning.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on reporter name and 212 area code.
|
Relationships (2)
Schoeman performed an analysis regarding the identity and background of Juror No. 1.
Key Quotes (3)
"Would you have liked to receive that information in order to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No. 1 was the suspended attorney?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
Quote #1
"I concluded from the fact that she was telling me that the voir dire answer had said that this person had not gone to law school, that this was not an issue."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
Quote #2
"Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad... that it made it statistically more likely that was the same person?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,492 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 646-3 Filed 08/22/22 Page 7 of 17
A-5822
A-5822
365
C2grdau4 Schoeman - cross
1 Q. Would you have liked to receive that information in order
2 to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No.
3 1 was the suspended attorney? After all, more information is
4 better, isn't it?
5 A. It did not occur to me at the time to ask for more
6 information.
7 Q. I didn't ask you whether it occurred to you at the time.
8 Would you have wanted more information? Would that have helped
9 your analysis?
10 A. I don't know whether it would have helped my analysis. I
11 concluded from the fact that she was telling me that the voir
12 dire answer had said that this person had not gone to law
13 school, that this was not an issue.
14 Q. Do you really mean what you just said, that you don't think
15 more information would have helped your analysis, Mr. Schoeman?
16 A. I'm telling you I don't know whether more information would
17 have helped my analysis. I'm telling you that I reached a
18 conclusion based on that information.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one
20 named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad, and you
21 were given information about their middle initials, that they
22 share the same middle initial, that it made it statistically
23 more likely that was the same person?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OKULA: Judge, I have nothing further. Thank you.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010105
C2grdau4 Schoeman - cross
1 Q. Would you have liked to receive that information in order
2 to make a better assessment of your own about whether Juror No.
3 1 was the suspended attorney? After all, more information is
4 better, isn't it?
5 A. It did not occur to me at the time to ask for more
6 information.
7 Q. I didn't ask you whether it occurred to you at the time.
8 Would you have wanted more information? Would that have helped
9 your analysis?
10 A. I don't know whether it would have helped my analysis. I
11 concluded from the fact that she was telling me that the voir
12 dire answer had said that this person had not gone to law
13 school, that this was not an issue.
14 Q. Do you really mean what you just said, that you don't think
15 more information would have helped your analysis, Mr. Schoeman?
16 A. I'm telling you I don't know whether more information would
17 have helped my analysis. I'm telling you that I reached a
18 conclusion based on that information.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that if you have two people, one
20 named Catherine Conrad, another named Catherine Conrad, and you
21 were given information about their middle initials, that they
22 share the same middle initial, that it made it statistically
23 more likely that was the same person?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OKULA: Judge, I have nothing further. Thank you.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010105
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document