MS. MCCARTHY
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Field
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Field
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Brune regarding the decision not to investigate Juror No. 1, Ms. Con... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court hearing | Conclusion of an evidentiary hearing where the defense and government both rest their cases. The ... | Court | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | Government Exhibit 10 was admitted into evidence. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman then called witn... | 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 testimony | Court testimony of a juror, Ms. Conrad, being questioned about her background and potential biase... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding he... | Courtroom | 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 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad regarding potential perjury during voir dire and her unde... | courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
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-00009266.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.
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-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-00010098.jpg
This court transcript page from February 22, 2022, documents the admission of 'Government Exhibit 10' into evidence without objection from any of the present counsel. Immediately following, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins presenting his case by calling his first witness, Paul Schoeman, who is then sworn in and identifies himself to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009952.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. A witness, Conrad, apologizes for committing perjury to serve on a jury; the court acknowledges an arrest warrant for her but decides to release her. The attorneys discuss the scheduling of future witnesses, including a U.S. Marshal and a law student, before the court adjourns until the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00009951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjuring herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The questioning focuses on her awareness of potential perjury charges, her receipt of use immunity, and her motivations for wanting to be on the jury, which she explains was for the 'interesting trial experience' and to get 'back in the swing of things' after a suspension.
DOJ-OGR-00009916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The witness, Ms. Trzaskoma, is being questioned regarding her knowledge of misconduct by Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad), specifically regarding a Westlaw report identifying Conrad as a suspended lawyer. Trzaskoma testifies that she believed the report was a case of mistaken identity and denies trying to 'sandbag' the court by withholding information about Conrad's criminal history and suspended license during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing. Both the defense attorneys for defendants Parse and Field, as well as the government attorney, rest their cases. The judge then instructs the parties to submit post-hearing briefs, specifically requesting they address the strongest evidence from the hearing and a key ethical question regarding the potential failure of attorneys for 'Brune & Richard' to disclose a July 21 letter and an investigation concerning Juror No. 1.
DOJ-OGR-00009419.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. In the proceeding, the Government (represented by Mr. Okula) rests its case after admitting Exhibit 10 into evidence. Subsequently, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins the defense case for 'Defendant Parse' by calling Paul Schoeman as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, who is questioned about their firm's decision not to investigate potential juror misconduct by Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad, following a verdict on May 24th. Brune states that the firm did not believe there was an issue to investigate at the time.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity