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 |
DOJ-OGR-00009234.jpg
This document is a table of contents or index of exhibits for a legal filing dated February 24, 2012, related to the case of Conrad v. Manessis. It lists various court documents, testimony, correspondence, and affidavits filed between 2009 and 2011. Key individuals mentioned include the parties Conrad and Manessis, as well as attorneys and witnesses such as Victor M. Serby, Catherine Conrad, Susan E. Brune, and Paul H. Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Feb 24, 2022. It discusses the defendant's argument that Juror 50 displayed implied bias by allegedly lying, rejecting comparisons to the 'Daugerdas' case and the dismissal of Juror 55. The court concludes that the defendant failed to establish implied bias, with significant portions of the text regarding Juror 55 redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010049.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on the jury selection process, specifically whether Ms. Brune's firm was aware that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they believed her sworn answers during voir dire ruled this out and that they would not have wanted a suspended lawyer on the jury for a case involving lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00010045.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 305) filed on May 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned about the disclosure of a private investigation firm, Nardello, in a legal brief and during a conference call with Judge Pauley. The testimony confirms that the Nardello firm performed jury research and investigative work pertaining to 'Juror No. 1' after a specific letter was received.
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Ms. Brune (likely an attorney). She is being questioned about a discrepancy between facts presented in a July 21st letter and a legal brief, and a subsequent conference call with Judge Pauley on July 22nd where the Judge expressed unhappiness with the conflicting information. Brune expresses regret for 'missing' something in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about their knowledge of statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during a July 15th conference call. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Brune read the call transcript in relation to filing a letter on July 21st, implying that Brune may have known Ms. Trzaskoma's statements were incorrect. Brune denies this assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on a past conversation between Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1,' specifically investigating whether the juror was actually a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' for a lawyer to lie under oath about their identity and denies that a Westlaw report was mentioned during their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00010020.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 4, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune describes a conversation with colleagues Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein (Theresa) while walking to 52 Duane, concerning suspicions that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. They discuss the juror's background revealed during voir dire, specifically a personal injury suit in the Bronx, and the juror's use of legal concepts like 'vicarious liability' and 'respondeat superior' which the witness notes are out of place in a criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00010017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies that they had no concerns about the behavior of a particular juror and recounts the circumstances surrounding a note sent by Juror No. 1 on May 10th. The witness recalls that Judge Pauley disclosed the note to the court only after summations were complete, believing it would have been unfair to do so in the middle of them.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00010009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune, who appears to be associated with the defense counsel, is questioned about their understanding of the voir dire process, confirming that while the judge leads the questioning of potential jurors, the defense could propose questions and request inquiries into new areas, but the final decision to ask any question rested with the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010006.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. She explains that her team had gathered 'Google-type information' on potential jurors but she chose to credit the jurors' in-court 'voir dire' responses. Ms. Brune admits she understood she could have asked Judge Pauley to inquire further about specific jurors based on this external information but did not do so.
DOJ-OGR-00010005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on whether she understood certain information about a potential juror to be significant, particularly to a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes objections from attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman, and rulings from the presiding judge.
DOJ-OGR-00010003.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00009949.jpg
This document contains pages 225-228 of a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The text documents the redirect examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror, who is being aggressively questioned about whether she followed Judge Pauley's instructions and whether she perjured herself during voir dire (jury selection). Conrad admits to not following instructions regarding voir dire and acknowledges 'omissions,' but insists she rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009948.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 221-224) from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of Ms. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney who served as a juror in a complex tax shelter fraud case presided over by Judge Pauley. The questioning revolves around her motives for serving on the jury while suspended, specifically whether she used the service to demonstrate stability for her bar reinstatement petition, which she denies.
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, containing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding her service in the trial of U.S. v. Daugerdas, et al. The questioning attorney probes Conrad's impartiality by referencing her past criminal record, her status as a suspended attorney, and a letter she wrote after the verdict. Conrad affirms that while she initially believed defendant David Parse was guilty, her final decision was based solely on Judge Pauley's legal instructions and was free from any bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009942.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, who was a juror in a previous trial. The questioning focuses on a letter Conrad wrote to another individual, Mr. Okula, in which she claimed she held out for two days to convict a defendant, David Parse. This is contrasted with a later statement she made to Judge Pauley, where she stated that Parse should not have been convicted on a particular charge, highlighting a significant contradiction in her accounts of the jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009939.jpg
This document is a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely Juror Catherine Conrad), who admits to deliberately lying to Judge Pauley during jury selection (voir dire) about her criminal history. Specifically, she concealed an August 2007 arrest in Winslow, Arizona, for disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute with her husband. While found in an Epstein-related file dump (DOJ-OGR), this document appears to be legal precedent regarding juror misconduct/perjury, likely referenced in appeals for the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It features the direct examination of a witness, Catherine Conrad, by attorney Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on impeaching Conrad's credibility by highlighting her history of alcoholism, pancreatitis, and a suspension from the practice of law by the Appellate Division for 'shocking disregard for the judicial system' and mental/physical disability. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, often associated with document releases related to high-profile inquiries, though the specific link to Epstein in this fragment appears to be the document batch source rather than direct content.
DOJ-OGR-00009934.jpg
This document contains pages 165-168 of a court transcript from February 15, 2012, from the case United States v. Daugerdas. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who admits to deliberately lying during voir dire (jury selection) about her education (claiming a BA instead of a law degree from Brooklyn Law School) and profession to ensure she was selected for the jury. While the text describes the Daugerdas tax fraud case, the blue header ('Case 1:20-cr-00332-AJN') indicates this document was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial on February 24, 2022, likely by the defense to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who served as a juror in a 'tax shelter case.' The questioning focuses on her credibility, specifically accusing her of lying about her residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and concealing her domestic disturbances on Barker Avenue.
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on allegations that Conrad was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by deliberately omitting that she was an attorney and by providing a false address (Bronxville) to Judge Pauley. Conrad admits to the 'omission' of her legal background but distinguishes it from a lie, while the questioner challenges her credibility and the truthfulness of her statements under oath.
DOJ-OGR-00009927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, her memory of prior court proceedings, and her past confrontational statements to the court, such as calling her husband a "convicted felon" whom she might retain as a lawyer and telling the court that her finances were "none of your business." Ms. Conrad's testimony is evasive and hostile, suggesting a contentious relationship with the court and the defendant's counsel.
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
Legal correspondence
Letter listed in index (Page A-5930)
Unknown
Legal correspondence
Legal Representation
Judge Pauley advised Conrad to get a lawyer and discussed appointing one if she qualified financially.
Court appearance
Witness told the Judge he was being 'stupid', mentioned Duke University, and claimed the prosecution's motion was ridiculous.
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