Mr. Shechtman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. DAVIS
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Parse
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Laurie Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL SCHOEMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Marie Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Benhamou
|
Counsel witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Parse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL SCHOEMAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BARRY H. BERKE
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Easterbrook
|
Citation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant Parse
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Parse
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-05 | Legal deadline | Deadline set for providing responses to the initial briefs. | N/A | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding the contents and accuracy of a legal brief. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding potential material omissions in a legal brief she submi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of a witness named Berke regarding an assessment of possible juror misconduct. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-03-23 | Legal deadline | Deadline set for the submission of initial briefs. | N/A | View |
| 2022-03-23 | Court hearing | A discussion between a judge and an attorney regarding the effectiveness of counsel in a past trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-22 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman, followed by the witness being ex... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-03-22 | Court proceeding | Mr. Shechtman presents a legal argument to the court regarding prejudice and the nature of eviden... | Southern District | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court hearing | Conclusion of an evidentiary hearing where the defense and government both rest their cases. The ... | Court | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Berke regarding the assessment of potential juror misconduct involvi... | N/A | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Shechtman presents arguments to a judge regarding a prior jury trial an... | A court in the Southern Dis... | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | Testimony of Ms. Brune during a legal proceeding. | Southern District | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court hearing | Mr. Shechtman presents arguments to the Judge regarding the circumstances of Mr. Parse's acquittal. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | Government Exhibit 10 was admitted into evidence. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman then called witn... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-24 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Mr. Schoeman by attorney Mr. Shechtman. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad by attorney Mr. Shechtman regarding her statements and om... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct (Conrad). Witness excuses, arrest warrant discussed but ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad regarding her testimony, use immunity, and admitted perju... | Southern District | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of juror Conrad regarding her voir dire statements. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceeding involving the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. ... | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad regarding potential perjury during voir dire and her unde... | courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | A court hearing in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., involving the testimony of a wi... | Courtroom of the Southern D... | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceedings in US v. Daugerdas involving the examination of witnesses Trzaskoma and Conrad | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 0022-02-24 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell). | Southern District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009274.jpg
This document is a court transcript index from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It has been filed as an exhibit (Document 616-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely as a legal precedent or impeachment material regarding witness testimony. The page lists the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, along with a list of Government and Defense (PMD) exhibits received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination and dismissal of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjury and misrepresentation regarding her service as a juror. Defense counsel (Mr. Gair) characterizes her as a 'pathological liar.' The proceedings also involve discussions about calling a U.S. Marshal and a law student named Mr. Benhamou as witnesses, though the latter is dismissed to return to class. The document appears to be an exhibit filed in a later case (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell based on the 2022 filing stamp).
DOJ-OGR-00009272.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is questioned about receiving use immunity and the possibility of facing perjury charges. The transcript culminates with the judge directly questioning Ms. Conrad about why she admittedly lied and perjured herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process, to which she responds it was for the 'interesting trial experience'.
DOJ-OGR-00009271.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad. The questioning, led primarily by attorney Mr. Shechtman, focuses on why she failed to disclose information during jury selection (voir dire), such as her husband's criminal record and her own suspended legal career. Conrad defends her 'omissions,' while the attorney probes whether she lied to get on the jury for the $40/day stipend, out of curiosity, or for 'intellectual stimulation'.
DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, featuring Ms. Trzaskoma's testimony during redirect and recross-examination. The questioning primarily concerns information about juror Catherine Conrad, specifically when Ms. Trzaskoma became aware of Conrad's background as a suspended lawyer with a criminal record and civil lawsuit, and whether this information was properly disclosed during the trial. The Court also inquires about a juror replacement event on May 16th during deliberations, and Ms. Trzaskoma denies any intent to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010181.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 22, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is arguing before a judge, refuting the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. Shechtman contends that the acquittal was the result of a split verdict caused by a single 'partisan' juror who was unable to convince the rest of the jury to convict, and that this outcome was not a benefit derived from her presence.
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010179.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022. An unnamed speaker argues that Mr. Parse's implementation of end-of-year financial transactions was a knowing and criminal act to obstruct the IRS, not a simple mistake. Another speaker, Ms. Davis, addresses the judge, referring to additional evidence submitted in a written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00010178.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the content appears to stem from a separate tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank (likely U.S. v. Daugerdas/Parse). The text details a closing argument or legal submission regarding 'tax shelter transactions' designed to defraud the IRS, specifically highlighting the roles of Deutsche Bank employees Mr. Parse and Carrie Yackee, and referencing testimony from Paul Daugerdas' secretary. The argument asserts that Parse and Yackee were the only ones at Deutsche Bank who knew the 'full picture' of the fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues that there is overwhelming evidence of defendant Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud via backdated transactions. She also contends that his background as a CPA is relevant to proving his intent. The transcript also references another attorney, Mr. Shechtman, and the testimony of Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein regarding their knowledge of a juror, which they allegedly tried to conceal from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.
DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, argues that the government's case against his clients, Pace and Brubaker, incorrectly characterizes actions as 'backdating'. He claims that Deutsche Bank records from February and March were simply marked 'as of' and provided to tax preparers, which is different from the government's portrayal and distinguishes his clients from a government cooperator in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010167.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.
DOJ-OGR-00010121.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 381) from a court transcript filed on August 17, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It lists the schedule of examinations (Direct, Cross, Redirect, Recross) for four individuals: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke, conducted by attorneys Davis, Shechtman, and Okula.
DOJ-OGR-00010120.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on March 24, 2022, capturing the end of a hearing. The judge finalizes deadlines with counsel, Mr. Shechtman and Mr. Okula, setting March 23 for initial briefs and April 5 for responses, before thanking them and adjourning the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00010118.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on March 22, 2022. In it, the judge ('The Court') asks counsel, Mr. Shechtman, for briefing on a hypothetical scenario regarding the appellate rights of both the defendant, Parse, and the government if a new trial were to be granted. Mr. Shechtman clarifies that the key issue is whether the defendant could file an interlocutory appeal before sentencing, which the Court confirms.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
DOJ-OGR-00010116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on why Berke did not further investigate a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, with Berke stating it was concluded they were different people based on the voir dire. After the examination, the witness is excused, and the court asks if the defense, representing a defendant named Parse, has any more witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00010114.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning, likely by an attorney named Mr. Okula, centers on whether Berke made an assessment of potential juror misconduct involving a juror and a suspended attorney with a similar name. Berke repeatedly states an unwillingness to speculate and claims that, based on personal experience, no issue was apparent at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010109.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 369) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. The text captures the end of a direct examination by Mr. Shechtman, where Berke recounts a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a mistaken identity involving a disbarred lawyer. The document then transitions to cross-examination by Mr. Okula, who makes a remark about checking the cross-examination off his 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00010107.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 21, 2022, featuring the direct examination of attorney Barry H. Berke by Mr. Shechtman. Berke testifies about his employment history at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel and the Federal Defenders office, and confirms he was a lawyer present in the courtroom during the trial of David Parse. The document bears a DOJ-OGR bates stamp, suggesting it was released as part of a Department of Justice records request.
DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankl. Mr. Schoeman details his professional history, including his firm's representation of Raymond Craig Brubaker in a prior trial alongside his partner, Barry Berke. The questioning then focuses on a specific event on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad.
Approval of transactions by Deutsche Bank
A brief submitted by Mr. Shechtman suggested that the transactions in question were approved by Deutsche Bank, a point the speaker is refuting.
Redirect Examination regarding Juror No. 1
Mr. Shechtman questions the witness, Berke, about why no further investigation was conducted into a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. The witness confirms it was because they agreed, based on the voir dire, that it couldn't be the same person.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding Berke's employment history and presence at the David Parse trial.
Direct examination of Barry H. Berke's employment history
Mr. Shechtman questions witness Barry H. Berke about his legal career, including his partnership at Kramer Levin, his time at the Federal Defenders office, and his role as a lawyer in a prior trial involving defendant David Parse.
Legal arguments in the case
Mr. Shechtman's brief is mentioned as having omitted the fact that the jury's struggle with legal definitions ended after they asked the Court to reread them.
Brief regarding transaction approval
Suggestion that transactions were approved by Deutsche Bank.
Approval of transactions by Deutsche Bank
A brief submitted by Mr. Shechtman suggested that the transactions in question were approved by Deutsche Bank, a point the speaker is refuting.
Argument on prejudice and backdating allegations
Mr. Shechtman argues that the key issue distinguishing his clients is the allegation of 'backdating,' which he claims is a mischaracterization by the government of how Deutsche Bank records were prepared and labeled 'as of'.
Argument regarding a split jury verdict for Mr. Parse
Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's assertion that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. He contends that the juror was a partisan who couldn't follow instructions, and the resulting split verdict was due to her inability to persuade other jurors, not a benefit to his client.
Legal Argument
Oral argument regarding prejudice, harmless error, and juror bias.
Argument regarding a split jury verdict for Mr. Parse
Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's assertion that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. He contends that the juror was a partisan who couldn't follow instructions, and the resulting split verdict was due to her inability to persuade other jurors, not a benefit to his client.
Post-verdict legal argument
Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's position that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a strategic choice regarding a juror. He contends the acquittal was due to a split verdict caused by a partisan juror who failed to persuade others, not because Mr. Parse benefited from her presence.
Cross-examination regarding voir dire omissions
Mr. Shechtman questions Ms. Conrad about her failure to disclose her husband's criminal history and other details during jury selection. The questioning probes her motives, including the $40/day stipend, her curiosity about the case, and her distinction between an "omission" and a "lie".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity