Judge Pauley
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Conrad
|
Juror judge |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Juror judge |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
PAUL SHECHTMAN
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Susan E. Brune
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Juror judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laurie Edelstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Professional witness juror judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Answerer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Judicial interaction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Juror judge implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Juror judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Judicial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted AUSA
|
Professional |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Voir dire | Judge Pauley explained the purpose of voir dire to the jury pool (venire), including Ms. Conrad. | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Pauley disclosed and read a note from Juror No. 1 after summations were completed. | Court | View |
| N/A | Trip | The underlying trial in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A past voir dire process is discussed, where the plan was for Judge Pauley to question potential ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial in which Conrad served as a juror and David Parse was a defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The voir dire process for jury selection is discussed, during which Judge Pauley would have quest... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial proceeding where a witness (Brune) is being questioned about a juror's behavior and a not... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir Dire for US v. Daugerdas | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Oath | Witness Conrad swore to Judge Pauley on March 2nd that she lived in Bronxville. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference call with Judge Pauley | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding (voir dire) | The jury selection process for a trial that was expected to be very long. A key issue was the ava... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding (trial) | A three-month long trial for which the jury selection discussed in the document was conducted. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | A past event where potential jurors, including Catherine Conrad, were questioned by Judge Pauley.... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where one witness (Ms. Brune) is excused and another (Laura Joy Edelstein) is cal... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-24 | N/A | Court proceeding where Ms. Brune is excused and Laurie Edelstein is called as a government witness. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2021-11-16 | N/A | Voir Dire (Jury Selection) | District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Voir dire / jury selection | Judge Pauley questioned Conrad about their residence history and property ownership, during which... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court appearance/testimony | The witness, Ms. Conrad, is testifying under court order. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Jury selection (voir dire) | Conrad was questioned as a potential juror and deliberately lied about his educational background... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Voir dire (jury selection) | A jury selection process where Judge Pauley questioned potential jurors, including Conrad. During... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Cross-examination of Ms. Conrad in United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Conrad regarding her juror service. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-12-23 | N/A | Previous court interaction mentioned where a financial affidavit was discussed. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-12-23 | Court event | Judge Pauley provided a financial affidavit form to Conrad to determine her eligibility for an ap... | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-12-20 | Meeting | Conrad made a statement to Judge Pauley. | N/A | View |
EFTA00031388.pdf
An email chain between Assistant United States Attorneys at the SDNY dated October 22, 2019. The discussion revolves around a civil case opinion where Judge Pauley commented on Epstein's death at the MCC. The sender inquires if the office ever investigated guards involved in a 'serious' 2015 incident at the facility, noting it is still within the statute of limitations.
EFTA00018373.pdf
Defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim requests Judge Nathan to release the names of 600 potential jurors to attorneys only, prior to voir dire, to facilitate background research and ensure a fair trial. The letter cites precedent involving juror misconduct (US v. Parse) and a recent order from the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' civil case (Sines v. Kessler) where juror names were released to counsel despite high publicity and security concerns. The document includes the cited order from the Western District of Virginia as Exhibit A.
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-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-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-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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00009249.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 616-1) in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 4, 2022. The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her conduct as a juror in a previous trial. She admits to omitting the fact that she possessed a Juris Doctor (JD) degree during jury selection (voir dire) and is questioned aggressively about whether this omission constituted a lie to the Court and Judge Pauley. The testimony also covers discrepancies regarding her stated residence (Bronxville vs. Bronx Village).
DOJ-OGR-00009247.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Daugerdas, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a former juror who is a suspended lawyer) regarding her financial status, specifically establishing she had approximately $14,000 in assets versus her claim of indigence for legal counsel. The questioning highlights discrepancies between her court testimony and a sworn affidavit submitted to the Bar disciplinary committee regarding her tax returns and income.
DOJ-OGR-00009246.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing an afternoon session where the Court addresses matters that arose during a luncheon recess, including a financial affidavit from Ms. Conrad and a voice mail she left stating she would not attend the hearing. The transcript also covers an examination by Mr. Gair and Mr. Okula regarding a prior conversation on December 20th with Judge Pauley about 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer and their personal finances, which 'The Answerer' claimed were irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00009245.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, by an attorney, Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on a prior court appearance where Conrad, upon being given a financial affidavit to determine her eligibility for a court-appointed lawyer, declared, "This is garbage." Gair probes Conrad's memory, motivations, and the rationality of her statement, which she describes as a "kneejerk reaction."
DOJ-OGR-00009244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial 'United States v. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, which was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, focusing on her mental state (medication use), her refusal to accept a subpoena during a December 20th hearing before Judge Pauley, and her financial inability to hire counsel. The questioning attorney challenges Conrad on whether her behavior of rejecting a subpoena and inviting arrest was 'rational' conduct for an officer of the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009243.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on Conrad's defiance of a previous court order from Judge Pauley to testify, her background as a suspended lawyer, and her mental health. Conrad is evasive, repeatedly stating she is not a psychologist, and provides minimal answers, including claiming she only takes "Water" as medication.
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
This document is a court transcript from 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (dated Feb 15, 2012) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely the infamous Juror 50 from the Daugerdas trial) regarding her bias, her admission to 'Googling' the judge and attorneys, and her 'smart a-s-s' comments about Judge Pauley being a 'Clinton appointee.' This transcript was likely used in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009241.jpg
This document is a condensed court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas', filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and her behavior during a previous court appearance before Judge Pauley on December 20th. The testimony highlights erratic statements Conrad previously made to Judge Pauley, including comments about his intelligence, his attendance at Duke University, and his potential desire for a 'Clinton appointment'.
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
This court transcript from February 15, 2012, documents the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is also a trained lawyer. The questioning centers on her defiance of a court order to appear, having told Judge Pauley's clerk she was not coming, and her rationale for this action which she is unable to explain. The testimony also reveals she was unaware of a potential immunity deal and had met with her apparent counsel, Ms. Sternheim, six times before the hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of witness Catherine M. Conrad, who initially pleads the Fifth Amendment regarding her prior testimony from March 2011. After being granted use immunity by the court, Conrad admits under questioning that her previous testimony as a prospective juror contained both omissions and lies.
DOJ-OGR-00009236.jpg
This document is page 'xii' of a legal index or table of contents, filed on February 24, 2022. It lists documents ranging from 2012 to 2013 concerning the case of United States v. David Parse, specifically referencing sentencing memoranda, restitution calculations regarding 'Jenkens and Gilchrist Clients,' and correspondence between attorney Paul Shechtman and Judge Pauley. The document outlines the procedural history of Parse's sentencing, appeal, and judgment.
Investigative firm involvement
Discussion regarding who was involved in the case/investigation.
Legal correspondence
Letter listed in index (Page A-6161)
Unknown
Legal correspondence
Legal correspondence
Letter listed in index (Page A-6115)
Unknown
Legal correspondence
Unknown
Legal correspondence
Legal correspondence
Letter listed in index (Page A-5930)
Court appearance
Witness told the Judge he was being 'stupid', mentioned Duke University, and claimed the prosecution's motion was ridiculous.
Legal Representation
Judge Pauley advised Conrad to get a lawyer and discussed appointing one if she qualified financially.
Attaching Westlaw Report
A letter was sent from Susan E. Brune to Judge Pauley, attaching a Westlaw Report.
Attaching Westlaw Report
A letter was sent from Susan E. Brune to Judge Pauley, attaching a Westlaw Report.
Legal Correspondence
Letter to Judge
No Subject
A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.
No Subject
A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.
No Subject
A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.
No Subject
A letter sent from Stanley J. Okula, Jr. to Judge Pauley.
Voir Dire / Residence
Stated she resided in Bronxville
Conviction of Parse
Conrad stated 'in my mind Parse should not have been convicted of number 1'.
Court Appearance
Conrad told Judge Pauley he was being 'stupid' and referenced a 'Clinton appointment'.
Residency
Swore she lived in Bronxville.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity