Event Details
March 01, 2010
Description
Voir Dire jury selection where Conrad lied to Judge Pauley.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge Pauley | person | 146 | View Entity |
| Conrad | person | 113 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
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.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
A hearing where the witness made statements to Judge Pauley that are the subject of the current examination.
2011-12-20 • Courtroom
Direct examination of juror/witness Conrad regarding her conduct during voir dire.
2012-02-15 • Courtroom
Voir dire (jury selection) commenced for the trial.
2011-03-01 • Courtroom
Direct examination of witness Conrad regarding her residency and truthfulness during jury selection.
2012-02-15 • Courtroom
Witness Conrad swore to bar authorities on February 26th that she lived in the Bronx.
Date unknown
Witness Conrad swore to Judge Pauley on March 2nd that she lived in Bronxville.
Date unknown • Courtroom
Witness Conrad was sworn to give a deposition under oath.
2009-03-24
Judge Pauley explained the purpose of voir dire to the jury pool (venire), including Ms. Conrad.
Date unknown • Federal Court
A past voir dire process is discussed, where the plan was for Judge Pauley to question potential juror Catherine M. Conrad to determine if she was the same person from a court opinion.
Date unknown
Judge Pauley attempted to determine 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer.
2011-12-20 • Court
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event