Ms. Conrad
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Juror judge |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad's husband
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Deputy Clerk
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Observational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Grace
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Witness juror |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Brubaker
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | A court trial where witness Brune was present every day and observed the jury. | courtroom | View |
| 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 | Trial | A trial where the witness, Brune, was present every day and observed the jury, including Ms. Conrad. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | A past event where Ms. Conrad responded to questions, stating her highest level of education was ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process where Ms. Conrad was questioned and made omissions about her husband's... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meetings | The witness met with Ms. Sternheim six times before the current date. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A past trial occurred, after which the witness 'Googled' the questioner. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-20 | Court hearing | Ms. Conrad was asked by the Court if she owned any stocks or bonds, to which she replied "none of... | Federal Court | View |
| 2025-05-01 | Receipt of communication | The government received Ms. Conrad's letter. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-30 | Communication | Receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter. | N/A | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Hearing | A list of appearances for a legal hearing, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District | View |
| 2021-11-16 | N/A | Voir Dire (Jury Selection) | District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court session/inquiry | Afternoon session of a court inquiry, addressing matters that developed over the luncheon recess,... | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Trial | A trial where Ms. Conrad and eleven other jurors rendered a verdict against Paul M. Daugerdas. | Federal Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court appearance/testimony | The witness, Ms. Conrad, is testifying under court order. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Ms. Conrad. | Federal Court, Southern Dis... | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad by attorney Mr. Shechtman regarding her statements and om... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding he... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing/Redirect examination of Ms. Conrad regarding juror misconduct. | Southern District Court | 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 |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct (Conrad). Witness excuses, arrest warrant discussed but ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving the redirect examination of Ms. Conrad regarding juror misconduct. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Direct examination of Ms. Conrad in US v. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Conrad regarding her sobriety and previous conduct. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009389.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2022. Edelstein is being questioned about his awareness that a juror, Ms. Conrad (Juror No. 1), was the same person as Catherine M. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. He states that he initially found it 'inconceivable' they were the same person and was not focused on her middle initial, and denies being told by Theresa Trzaskoma about reports or documents that would have clarified the juror's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, who is questioned about their firm's decision not to investigate potential juror misconduct by Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad, following a verdict on May 24th. Brune states that the firm did not believe there was an issue to investigate at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009354.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief drafted by Ms. Trzaskoma and signed/approved by Brune, which allegedly omitted the fact that the defense had accessed a 'suspension opinion' during the trial. Brune admits to regretting the oversight but argues the investigation mentioned in the brief was genuinely prompted by a letter from Ms. Conrad, disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness named Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about communications she had with defense counsel after receiving a copy of a letter from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Brune states these were 'joint defense communications' and recounts becoming upset by a jury note, after which her colleague, Ms. Edelstein, verified a phone number from the letter on the Bar website.
DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies about being present for an entire trial, having a clear view of the jury, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being very attentive and taking copious notes. The document is part of case file 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009305.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript filed on February 24, 2022, detailing the appearances for a hearing. It identifies the legal counsel for defendants Field and Parse, as well as for a Ms. Conrad. The document also notes the presence of IRS Special Agent Christine Mazzella.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-02-15 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Conrad | $40.00 | Mentioned in testimony: 'Maybe it just wasn't f... | View |
Unknown
Stated 'I'm a purist and numbers don't lie' and expressed doubt about Mr. Shanbrom's testimony.
Unknown
A letter disclosed by the government that prompted an investigation.
No Subject
A letter from Ms. Conrad to Mr. Okula, a copy of which was received by the witness, Ms. Brune. It contained a phone number.
Praise for legal work
A letter written by the witness, Ms. Conrad, to attorney Mr. Okula. The letter is the subject of extensive questioning regarding the choice of stamp and the capitalization of the phrase "our government." The letter praised Mr. Okula, Miss Davis, and Mr. Hernandez for doing an "outstanding job on behalf of our government."
Refusal to appear in court
Ms. Conrad told Judge Pauley's clerk that she was not coming to court.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
Refusal to appear in court
Ms. Conrad told Judge Pauley's clerk that she was not coming to court.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
Information about the jury
Ms. Conrad sent a letter to the government in May after the verdict, apparently concerning the jury.
Information about the jury
Ms. Conrad sent a letter to the government in May after the verdict, apparently concerning the jury.
Unknown
A letter from Ms. Conrad is mentioned as having prompted an investigation, which was later described in a legal brief.
Unknown
A letter from Ms. Conrad is mentioned as having prompted an investigation, which was later described in a legal brief.
Unspecified
A letter received from Ms. Conrad which, according to the witness, marked the beginning of their knowledge on a particular subject.
Order to appear
Witness attributes her behavior to the stress of receiving a subpoena.
Post-trial matter
A post-trial letter from Ms. Conrad was received on June 30.
No Subject
A letter received by the government after the verdict, related to the case.
Post-trial matter
A post-trial letter from Ms. Conrad was received on June 30.
Refusal to testify
Ms. Conrad told the deputy clerk that she would not be testifying today.
Unknown
Ms. Conrad had a conversation with the Court's deputy at 7:52 a.m. on the day of the hearing.
Refusal to testify
Ms. Conrad told the deputy clerk that she would not be testifying today.
Court appearance
Witness told the Judge he was being 'stupid', mentioned Duke University, and claimed the prosecution's motion was ridiculous.
Juror Misconduct
A letter from Ms. Conrad was received by Ms. Brune's firm around June 20th, 2011. The letter is the basis for questions about potential juror misconduct.
Unknown
Letter received by Brune's firm approximately three weeks after being posted to the government.
Post-verdict communication
Witness wrote to the prosecutor expressing a wish to have spoken with him; written on a computer with a made-up caption.
Court Appearance
Conrad told Judge Pauley he was being 'stupid' and referenced a 'Clinton appointment'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity