| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.
This document is a transcript of a legal deposition from March 24, 2022, involving a witness identified as Brune. The questioning focuses on an email and a Westlaw report concerning a person's identity and status as a suspended attorney from the New York State Office of Court Administration. The witness expresses a belief that there was a case of mistaken identity, where a "Bronxville stay-at-home wife" was confused with a suspended lawyer of the same name.
This is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination by Brune). The witness is being questioned about a document containing addresses (Bronx and Bronxville) and lawsuits. The testimony focuses on a specific entry on page 9 of that document, which lists Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' under 'Additional Individuals' rather than 'Head of Household.' The questioning also references email traffic from May 12th involving Ms. Trzaskoma identifying Conrad.
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a lawyer, Ms. Brune, regarding her firm's knowledge of potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune asserts that the legal standard requires 'actual knowledge' of misconduct, which she claims her firm did not possess, though she admits they erroneously believed no misconduct occurred. The questioning also references a July 22nd telephone call where Ms. Brune apparently acknowledged her client, defendant Parse, was in a different situation compared to other defendants.
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.
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.
This document is an index of exhibits (13 through 23) from a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' filed in a legal case. The exhibits consist of various legal and criminal records, including court dispositions, police records, and filings related to individuals named Catherine Conrad, Catherine Rosa, and Frank Rosa. Several exhibits pertain to the civil case 'Conrad v. Manessis' in Bronx County, New York, with filings dated between 2003 and 2009.
This document is a table of contents for exhibits attached to a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' in a legal case. The exhibits primarily concern an individual named Catherine Conrad (also referred to as Catherine M. Conrad and Catherine Morgan Conrad) and include various legal and personal documents. These documents range from a 1998 criminal court disposition to a 2007 marriage certificate and a 2011 letter, suggesting a compilation of background information for a legal proceeding.
This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.
This document is a news article, filed as part of a legal case, detailing an interview with 'Scotty David,' a juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The juror describes his observations of Maxwell's demeanor in court, the jury's deliberations, and reveals that he is a victim of child sex abuse, an experience he shared with other jurors. This disclosure, if not previously revealed on his juror questionnaire, could provide grounds for Maxwell to claim a mistrial, according to legal expert Moira Penza.
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 24, 2022, for case 20-cr-00330-ABN. The juror responds to a series of questions about their personal relationships with key case participants. The juror explicitly denies having any personal knowledge of or dealings with defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any of the named prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
This document is page 14 of a filed court document (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 9, 2022. It contains a portion of a questionnaire filled out by Juror ID 50. The juror answers 'No' to having any association with the NYPD and 'No' to having any opinion of U.S. Attorneys Damian Williams or Audrey Strauss that would affect their impartiality.
This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a defendant's conviction on multiple counts. It details the defendant's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, specifically by making travel arrangements for a victim named Jane and recruiting another victim, Virginia. The document cites trial testimony and legal precedents to assert that a rational jury could and did find the defendant guilty.
This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'
This document, a legal filing from February 25, 2022, discusses the defendant's arguments regarding the availability and completeness of phone records and flight manifests in a criminal case. The defendant claims that Carolyn's testimony could have been disproven by phone records and that flight manifests would have helped challenge Jane's recollections, but the document refutes these claims, citing testimony from Visoski and Rodgers about the handling and incompleteness of flight manifests.
This legal document is a court filing in which the defendant argues for the case to be dismissed due to substantial prejudice caused by pre-indictment delay. The defendant claims the deaths of several witnesses, including architects, a property manager, and a housekeeper who worked for Epstein, as well as others like Jeffrey Epstein himself, prevent a fair trial. The document indicates the Court has previously rejected these arguments as speculative and lacking evidence of actual prejudice.
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) argues against a claim of multiplicity by distinguishing between two separate conspiracies involving the defendant. It details a 1990s scheme focused on grooming and mentoring victims for abuse at Epstein's properties, and a separate 2000s 'pyramid scheme' where victims were paid to recruit others for massage appointments.
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, analyzes the overlap in time and geographic scope between two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five. It argues that the overlap is minimal, with Count Three primarily covering conduct in the 1990s involving transporting minors from Florida to New York, while Count Five covers a sex trafficking conspiracy in the 2000s. The document references an overt act involving efforts by a defendant and Epstein to solicit a person named Carolyn to travel, and mentions that someone named Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein.
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, argues that two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five, are substantially different and not redundant. It distinguishes them based on different underlying statutes (including the Mann Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act), differing ages of consent (17 in New York vs. 18), geographic locations (New York vs. Florida), and the specific victims involved, including Jane, Annie Farmer, and Virginia Roberts. The document cites flight records and testimony from pilot David Rodgers as evidence of Virginia Roberts traveling with the defendant and Epstein at age 17.
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.
This legal document presents the defendant's speculation on a jury's split verdict, arguing that the conviction was based on a trip to New Mexico. The defense contends the jury acquitted on an enticement charge because flight logs, while placing the defendant on the trip, offered no proof she induced the victim, 'Jane', to go. The document contrasts this with a trip to New York, where Jane's testimony was corroborated by a flight record, and discusses the lack of evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in Jane's return travel from New Mexico.
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text is a legal argument refuting the defense's interpretation of a jury note regarding accomplice liability and flight arrangements. It specifically addresses the victim 'Jane', debating whether Maxwell arranged her return flight from New Mexico and discussing corroborating evidence in flight logs versus commercial flight records.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity