Relationship Details

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, who was a juror in a previous trial. The questioning focuses on a letter Conrad wrote to another individual, Mr. Okula, in which she claimed she held out for two days to convict a defendant, David Parse. This is contrasted with a later statement she made to Judge Pauley, where she stated that Parse should not have been convicted on a particular charge, highlighting a significant contradiction in her accounts of the jury deliberations.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, containing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding her service in the trial of U.S. v. Daugerdas, et al. The questioning attorney probes Conrad's impartiality by referencing her past criminal record, her status as a suspended attorney, and a letter she wrote after the verdict. Conrad affirms that while she initially believed defendant David Parse was guilty, her final decision was based solely on Judge Pauley's legal instructions and was free from any bias.

This document is a court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who served as a juror in a 'tax shelter case.' The questioning focuses on her credibility, specifically accusing her of lying about her residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and concealing her domestic disturbances on Barker Avenue.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding their service in a trial involving defendant David Parse. The questioning probes Conrad's impartiality, focusing on a post-verdict letter, their initial belief in the defendant's guilt, and whether their own past criminal history (including arrests for DUI and shoplifting) biased their judgment. Conrad consistently affirms that their final decision was based solely on the evidence and Judge Pauley's legal instructions, and that their personal history did not affect their ability to be fair and impartial.

This document contains pages 165-168 of a court transcript from February 15, 2012, from the case United States v. Daugerdas. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who admits to deliberately lying during voir dire (jury selection) about her education (claiming a BA instead of a law degree from Brooklyn Law School) and profession to ensure she was selected for the jury. While the text describes the Daugerdas tax fraud case, the blue header ('Case 1:20-cr-00332-AJN') indicates this document was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial on February 24, 2022, likely by the defense to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.

This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the testimony of a witness named Conrad, who admits to lying during jury selection (voir dire) before Judge Pauley to avoid being dismissed. Specifically, she failed to disclose a 2007 arrest in Winslow, Arizona, for disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute with her husband, and subsequently skipped her court date.

This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case United States v. Daugerdas, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The witness, a suspended lawyer, is being aggressively questioned about her defiant behavior toward Judge Pauley during a previous hearing regarding her role as a juror, as well as inquiries into her mental health, specifically bipolar disorder. The witness is evasive, frequently claiming she is not a psychologist and giving sarcastic answers, such as stating she takes 'Water' when asked about medications.