Catherine Conrad
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Correspondent |
7
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Her husband (unnamed)
|
Marital |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Oklua
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Potential identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Potential connection |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Identity under investigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Correspondent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert Conrad
|
Familial implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Suspected identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Supreme Court Appellate Division
|
Professional disciplinary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Juror judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA Okula
|
Prosecutor juror communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nardello
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Investigative subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire (jury selection) where it was learned that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, had been invo... | 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 |
| N/A | Court proceeding / deposition | Examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Okula regarding the firm's knowledge of facts related to a go... | Southern District | View |
| N/A | Disciplinary proceeding | A pending disciplinary proceeding concerning Ms. Conrad's medical suspension held before the disc... | First Judicial Department | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | A jury had discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse, and struggled with the definition... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Litigation | A personal injury lawsuit that Catherine Conrad was involved in. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process during which a juror (Catherine Conrad) disclosed her involvement in a... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process during which a juror (presumably Juror No. 1) disclosed involvement in... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of witness Conrad in US v. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony regarding reinstatement and credibility. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceedings in USA v. Daugerdas; direct examination of Catherine Conrad. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Flight | Planned testimony of Ms. Conrad where she intends to assert her Fifth Amendment right against sel... | courtroom | View |
| 2011-05-25 | Correspondence | Letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq. | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-25 | Communication | A letter was sent from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua, Esq. | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-24 | N/A | Jury deliberations where Juror No. 1 asked for clarification on 'willfully' and 'knowingly'. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-11 | Court proceeding | The Court read a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, during an afternoon session. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-11 | Court proceeding | The Court read aloud a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-02-28 | N/A | Catherine Conrad submitted reinstatement papers to practice law. | Court | View |
| 2010-01-01 | N/A | Appellate Division order regarding Catherine Conrad. | New York | View |
| 2009-10-01 | N/A | Maxwell Institute reported witness was negatively discharged. | Maxwell Institute | View |
| 2009-08-01 | N/A | Witness kicked out of treatment program at Maxwell Institute for drinking. | Maxwell Institute | View |
| 2009-03-29 | N/A | Testimony of Catherine Conrad in disciplinary committee hearing (PMD Exhibit 17). | Supreme Court Appellate Div... | View |
| 2009-03-07 | Legal filing | Filing of a Note of Issue for the case Conrad v. Manessis. | N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County | View |
| 2009-01-19 | Legal filing | Filing of an Affidavit of Catherine Conrad for the case Conrad v. Manessis. | N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009448.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal opinion or declaration filed in April 2012 (and re-filed in 2022) regarding the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard. The text argues that the lawyers had no obligation to disclose certain research regarding juror Catherine Conrad at specific times. It lists various documents reviewed, including briefs, letters, and hearing transcripts from 2011 and 2012, and cites New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula questions Berke about a hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, serving as Juror No. 1. Berke repeatedly refuses to answer, calling the scenario 'far-fetched' and an attempt to make him speculate on an experience he's never had.
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between "Juror No. 1" and Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer who was also involved in a personal injury lawsuit and allegedly shared the same address as the juror. Berke states they knew of the juror's lawsuit from voir dire but did not believe the juror was the same person as the disbarred lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended New York attorney.' Berke denies being told specific details but recalls a conversation where it was noted that the juror had previously been a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney named Schoeman. The questioning centers on what Schoeman knew about allegations that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended attorney, referencing a potential Westlaw report and an internal firm email he claims not to have seen. Schoeman maintains he was unaware of the specific information and only took action by asking about the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of attorney Mr. Schoeman. The testimony focuses on establishing Schoeman's background and his involvement in a previous trial (United States v. Parse et al.) regarding a specific incident on May 11, 2011, involving a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad. This testimony is likely being used to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein. The testimony concerns the drafting of a legal brief and whether the legal team knowingly omitted information regarding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad prior to voir dire (jury selection). The witness explains their focus was on establishing identity rather than waiving rights regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Edelstein, is being questioned about a legal brief. The questioner suggests the brief creates a misleading impression about the timeline of when her side learned about an 'Appellate Division suspension report' relative to receiving a 'juror note' and a letter from Catherine Conrad. While Edelstein concedes the brief might convey that impression, she denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg
This is a court transcript page filed on February 24, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about whether their legal team had the resources to investigate Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, specifically regarding a prior personal injury lawsuit she failed to fully disclose during voir dire. Edelstein admits they had the resources to call investigators (Nardello) but did not do so initially because they didn't believe the Catherine Conrad in the Westlaw report was the same person as the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. It features testimony from a witness named Edelstein regarding a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1. They debated whether the juror was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad but concluded at the time that it was 'inconceivable' based on voir dire responses, specifically regarding education.
DOJ-OGR-00009400.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein performed Google research on 'May 12th' regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad, after allegedly being tipped off by Theresa Trzaskoma. The witness denies having Conrad's phone number on that date and clarifies the specific information received from Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009397.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Edelstein) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness discusses receiving a disturbing letter on June 20th from Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer, which contained insights into jury deliberations after a three-month trial. The witness describes discussing the letter and an Appellate Division order with Susan Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00009396.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 335) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Edelstein is being questioned regarding their role in the defense of David Parse, specifically concerning email exchanges involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou regarding Robert Conrad. The testimony also touches on the witness's involvement in voir dire (jury selection) and the receipt of a 'Catherine Conrad letter' or dossier.
DOJ-OGR-00009394.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2020. Edelstein is questioned about receiving a memo from David Benhamou via email while in San Francisco, which detailed information on 'Juror No. 1', an 'Appellate Division order', and a 'Westlaw report'. The questioning also reveals that Edelstein's partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, referred to the information as a 'dossier' and that Edelstein reviewed a suspension report concerning a Catherine M. Conrad from Bronxville.
DOJ-OGR-00009393.jpg
This document is a transcript of testimony from an individual named Edelstein. Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of a dossier or information gathered on Catherine Conrad. The witness recalls a conversation on June 20th with Theresa Trzaskoma about the information and being directed to a memo from a paralegal, David Benhamou, but denies characterizing the information as a 'dossier' and is uncertain about the exact timeline of events relative to a July 15th conference.
DOJ-OGR-00009388.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Edelstein questions a witness about the identity of 'Catherine Conrad,' specifically investigating if two individuals with that name, one identified as 'Juror No. 1,' are the same person. The discussion also covers the firm's knowledge regarding Juror No. 1's identity and the involvement of Theresa Trzaskoma in related inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009342.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune is questioned about a prior conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which they discussed the possibility that Juror No. 1 might be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they dismissed the idea as nonsensical and asserts confidently that Ms. Trzaskoma never mentioned a Westlaw report on the matter, citing the thorough nature of another colleague, Laurie Edelstein, as the basis for her certainty.
DOJ-OGR-00009339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Witness 'Brune' is being questioned about when they became aware of research conducted by their colleague Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50). The testimony focuses on whether Brune was included in email traffic regarding this research prior to jury deliberations. Attorneys Schectman and Davis argue over the timestamp (West Coast vs East Coast) of a specific note.
DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why Brune and their team did not inform the court about information suggesting a juror was a suspended attorney. Brune explains that the information, found via a Google search by a colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was initially dismissed as pertaining to a different person and that they did not have a physical printout of the document in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009325.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, Ms. Brune (a defense attorney), is being questioned about her failure to inform the Court during jury selection that a Google search revealed a prospective juror (or person with a similar name), Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009323.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript page where a witness named Brune recounts discussions about a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, during voir dire. A colleague named Theresa discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name, and a jury consultant advised striking Conrad from the jury, arguing that as a recovering alcoholic, she would likely focus more on personal responsibility than the government's burden of proof.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, referenced in a question about receiving a dossier.
Unknown
Reference to receiving 'the letter of Catherine Conrad'.
Facts concerning the Catherine Conrad letter
A 'Catherine Conrad letter' is discussed in the context of what the firm knew prior to its receipt.
Unknown
Letter included her phone number at the top.
Discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse
A letter from Catherine Conrad to the government, referenced in the defendant's briefing, which discussed deliberations concerning David Parse.
Case Deliberations
A note written by juror Catherine Conrad, the contents of which are being argued over to determine if they show prejudice. The speaker argues that Rule 606(b) precludes drawing inferences from this note.
Juror's note
A juror's note written by Catherine Conrad is the subject of a legal argument regarding whether it can be used to infer prejudice in the case. The speaker argues that Rule 606(b) precludes drawing such inferences from the note.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, the receipt of which is used as a time marker in the questioning.
Jury discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse
Discussed deliberations regarding David Parse and the struggle regarding definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
Unknown
Referred to as the 'Catherine Conrad letter'.
Request for closed courtroom
Requesting that questioning concerning her medical suspension and disciplinary proceedings be conducted in a closed courtroom.
Request for closed courtroom
A letter from Catherine Conrad requesting that any questioning concerning her medical suspension and disciplinary proceedings be conducted in a closed courtroom.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, dated 5/25/11, is cited as the source of a quote from Juror No. 1.
No Subject
Exhibit 3 is a letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq., dated May 25, 2011.
No Subject
Exhibit 3 is a letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua, Esq., dated May 25, 2011.
Unknown
No preview available
Letter to the Government
Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government
Letter to the Government
Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government
Court Exhibit 3
A note from Catherine Conrad, listed as Court Exhibit 3.
PMD Exhibit 20
Order regarding suspension/discipline.
PMD Exhibit 17
Testimony regarding alcoholism and diagnosis.
Jury Deliberations
Letter providing insight into jury deliberations which 'disturbed and shocked' the recipient.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity