court transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 16166320 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117
Summary
The document appears to be a transcript of a court hearing or argument where an attorney is discussing the strategic decisions made during juror selection, specifically regarding a juror with a 'checkered history'. The attorney argues that their decision was not a 'sandbagging' tactic, but rather a genuine change of heart after re-evaluating the juror's note.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Related Documents (6)
transcript: A-5906
The transcript discusses a case where an attorney, Theresa, had second thoughts about a juror and investigated further, ultimately deciding to keep the juror. The discussion highlights the government's view that the decision was strategic and aimed at securing an acquittal.
court transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117
The document appears to be a transcript of a legal discussion or argument, focusing on whether the actions of the Brune law firm on May 12, 2011, constituted a 'strategic judgment'. The speaker analyzes the concept of strategic judgment, referencing the Second Circuit and Justice Stevens' dissent, to determine if the firm's actions were a deliberate choice or oversight.
Court Transcript: 1:20-cv-13003
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding on February 15, 2012, featuring testimonies from Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, with various attorneys conducting direct and cross-examinations, and a list of government and defense exhibits received into evidence.
Court Transcript Index: A-5670
This is an index to a court transcript from the trial of Paul M. Daugerdas, detailing the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, as well as the receipt of various government and defense exhibits.
transcript of a legal discussion or deposition: A-5905
The document discusses whether the Brune firm's actions on May 12, 2011, constituted a 'strategic judgment', and explores the definition of this term through references to Justice Stevens' dissent and Second Circuit guidance.
deposition: A-5719
The witness discusses a conversation about Catherine Conrad, a potential juror, and how the jury consultant advised striking her due to her background as a recovering alcoholic. The witness also mentions that the potential juror's name matched that of a suspended lawyer, which was considered during the voir dire process.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.