Relationship Details

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions her about why she made several omissions during jury selection, including failing to disclose her husband's criminal history. The questioning explores her motivations, such as a $40/day juror stipend, unemployment, and an intellectual curiosity for the courtroom, and challenges her distinction between an "omission" and a "lie".

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, her memory of prior court proceedings, and her past confrontational statements to the court, such as calling her husband a "convicted felon" whom she might retain as a lawyer and telling the court that her finances were "none of your business." Ms. Conrad's testimony is evasive and hostile, suggesting a contentious relationship with the court and the defendant's counsel.