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, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on her credibility, exploring her past actions as a juror for a Mr. Okula, her understanding of financial matters from an expert named Dr. DeRosa, and her failure to disclose a prior disciplinary suspension from the Bar Association during jury selection. The transcript also reveals personal details, such as her husband being a convicted felon, which are used to challenge her character and motivations.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. A witness, Ms. Conrad, is being questioned about providing conflicting residency information (Bronx vs. Bronxville) during jury selection. The questioning suggests she may have misrepresented her address to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and to potentially conceal a tumultuous home life.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad. The questioning, led primarily by attorney Mr. Shechtman, focuses on why she failed to disclose information during jury selection (voir dire), such as her husband's criminal record and her own suspended legal career. Conrad defends her 'omissions,' while the attorney probes whether she lied to get on the jury for the $40/day stipend, out of curiosity, or for 'intellectual stimulation'.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.

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.