SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00020859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which a speaker, likely the judge, explains their decision to reject a proposal from the defense regarding how to answer a jury question about 'Count Four'. The speaker argues for reminding the jury of the entire instruction, including the relevant New York penal law, rather than just pointing to specific language. The speaker also formally records that they have extended the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour to 6:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00009278.jpg
This document is page 56 of 67 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAEum), dated February 15, 2012. It serves as an index or concordance of keywords and their corresponding page and line numbers within a larger legal document. The case involves the United States of America and Paul M. Daugerdas, and the index includes terms related to legal proceedings, people, organizations, and locations.
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-00009270.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (a former juror), who is being aggressively questioned about her failure to follow Judge Pauley's instructions and her admission of perjury during voir dire. The document is likely included in the Maxwell case files as a legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and the impact of untruthful answers during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, of the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a juror/attorney) in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The header indicates this document was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), likely as a defense exhibit regarding juror misconduct precedents. The text details Conrad's affirmation that she followed Judge Pauley's instructions, her legal background from Brooklyn Law School, and her deliberations regarding witnesses Dr. DeRosa and Paul Shanbrom, and defendants Brubaker and Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding their service in a trial involving defendant David Parse. The questioning probes Conrad's impartiality, focusing on a post-verdict letter, their initial belief in the defendant's guilt, and whether their own past criminal history (including arrests for DUI and shoplifting) biased their judgment. Conrad consistently affirms that their final decision was based solely on the evidence and Judge Pauley's legal instructions, and that their personal history did not affect their ability to be fair and impartial.
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-00009265.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Daugerdas', filed as Exhibit A-5661 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad (likely the infamous juror Catherine Conrad), who admits to lying and omitting information during voir dire to make herself 'more marketable as a juror.' The questioning covers her husband's criminal record (convicted felon, 7.5-year sentence), her own disciplinary suspension by the Bar Association, and her flippant 'smart ass' attitude toward the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009263.jpg
This document is a four-page transcript excerpt (pages 197-200) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (February 15, 2012), filed as Exhibit A-5659 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript features the examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad regarding a letter she sent to a Mr. Okula (likely a fellow juror), in which she included her phone number and discussed her reasoning for convicting defendant David Parse. The questioning highlights contradictions between what Conrad wrote to Okula on May 25th (claiming she wanted to convict Parse 100%) and what she told Judge Pauley on December 20th (claiming Parse shouldn't have been convicted on count 1). This document was likely used in the Maxwell trial to argue legal precedents regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009262.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, but released within an Epstein-related document dump (DOJ-OGR-00009262). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (also known as Rosa), regarding a letter she wrote to prosecutor Mr. Okula on May 25, 2011, the day after a verdict was reached in a previous trial where she served as a juror. The questioning focuses on her anxiety to speak with the prosecution, discrepancies between her physical location (Barker Avenue) and the return address used (Parkview Drive), and her failure to contact defense attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009260.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the testimony of a witness named Conrad, who admits to lying during jury selection (voir dire) before Judge Pauley to avoid being dismissed. Specifically, she failed to disclose a 2007 arrest in Winslow, Arizona, for disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute with her husband, and subsequently skipped her court date.
DOJ-OGR-00009259.jpg
This document is an exhibit (A-5655) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a transcript from a 2012 trial (*USA v. Daugerdas*) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The testimony focuses on Conrad's criminal history—including multiple DUIs, assaulting a police officer, shoplifting shrimp, and harassment—and his admission to lying about these arrests during jury selection (voir dire) and on a petition filed under oath.
DOJ-OGR-00009258.jpg
This document is a transcript from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of witness Catherine Conrad (also known as Catherine Rosa), focusing on her credibility, her indefinite suspension from the practice of law, her alcoholism, and her arrest for petit larceny in 2009. The testimony reveals she submitted inaccurate medical reports regarding her sobriety to support her petition for reinstatement to the bar.
DOJ-OGR-00009257.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial *United States v. Daugerdas* (Feb 15, 2012), likely filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) to challenge the credibility of a juror (Catherine Conrad). The transcript details the cross-examination of Conrad regarding her suspension from the practice of law, her history of alcoholism, and her failure to disclose these facts to the court (specifically Judge Pauley). Several exhibits (PMD 14, 17, and 20) confirming her disciplinary history and medical issues are admitted into evidence during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009256.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on whether Conrad intentionally lied by omitting the fact he was a lawyer in order to be selected for a jury. Conrad admits to omitting the "pertinent fact" and the questioning explores his motivations, his state of mind during deliberations, and his interactions with U.S. Marshals who later served him a subpoena related to the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009255.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, capturing the direct examination of a juror named Conrad. Conrad admits that during jury selection, he deliberately lied to the court by concealing that he had a law degree from Brooklyn Law School. He states he did this because he believed any potential juror with a legal background would be dismissed, particularly in this case which involved lawyers on trial for tax fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00009254.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas (dated Feb 15, 2012), specifically a direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The testimony focuses on Conrad's alleged perjury and misconduct during jury selection (voir dire), specifically regarding lies about her residence in Bronxville and her husband's background (claiming he owned bus companies when he was actually a 'retired criminal' released from a NJ penitentiary in 2004). While included in a DOJ release batch (DOJ-OGR-00009254), the content pertains to the Daugerdas tax shelter case and juror misconduct, not directly to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It captures the direct examination of a witness or juror named Conrad, who is being questioned about lies told to Judge Pauley during jury selection. Conrad admits to falsely stating they lived at their address their "whole life" and that they owned their residence, explaining they did so because they "thought I would seem more juror marketable."
DOJ-OGR-00009252.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. A witness, Ms. Conrad, is being questioned about providing conflicting residency information (Bronx vs. Bronxville) during jury selection. The questioning suggests she may have misrepresented her address to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and to potentially conceal a tumultuous home life.
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity