Relationship Details

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on whether Conrad intentionally lied by omitting the fact he was a lawyer in order to be selected for a jury. Conrad admits to omitting the "pertinent fact" and the questioning explores his motivations, his state of mind during deliberations, and his interactions with U.S. Marshals who later served him a subpoena related to the matter.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. A witness, Conrad, apologizes for committing perjury to serve on a jury; the court acknowledges an arrest warrant for her but decides to release her. The attorneys discuss the scheduling of future witnesses, including a U.S. Marshal and a law student, before the court adjourns until the following morning.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjuring herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The questioning focuses on her awareness of potential perjury charges, her receipt of use immunity, and her motivations for wanting to be on the jury, which she explains was for the 'interesting trial experience' and to get 'back in the swing of things' after a suspension.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is questioned about receiving use immunity and the possibility of facing perjury charges. The transcript culminates with the judge directly questioning Ms. Conrad about why she admittedly lied and perjured herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process, to which she responds it was for the 'interesting trial experience'.