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 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 is a four-page transcript excerpt (pages 197-200) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (February 15, 2012), filed as Exhibit A-5659 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript features the examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad regarding a letter she sent to a Mr. Okula (likely a fellow juror), in which she included her phone number and discussed her reasoning for convicting defendant David Parse. The questioning highlights contradictions between what Conrad wrote to Okula on May 25th (claiming she wanted to convict Parse 100%) and what she told Judge Pauley on December 20th (claiming Parse shouldn't have been convicted on count 1). This document was likely used in the Maxwell trial to argue legal precedents regarding juror misconduct.