{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": null,
    "document_number": "A-5656",
    "date": "February 15, 2012",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.\n\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 185\n1 Q. When you did you make the deliberate decision not to reveal\n2 your criminal arrests and convictions?\n3 A. Monday, March 1st, I believe it was the first day of voir\n4 dire, and I was sitting in the third seat. Judge Pauley\n5 started the questioning the second day, I believe that was\n6 Tuesday, March 2nd, with me. It was probably that evening\n7 between the 1st and the 2nd.\n8 Q. You thought that you would be thrown off the jury if you\n9 told the truth, right?\n10 A. Probably.\n11 Q. That's why you lied about it?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. You also lied in not disclosing the fact that you were\n14 arrested in Winslow, Arizona, on August 4th of 2007, correct?\n15 A. I have no idea what the date was.\n16 Q. Do you know that you were arrested in a place called\n17 Winslow, Arizona?\n18 A. Yes, where I was -- yes.\n19 Q. When you were arrested in Winslow, Arizona, that was a\n20 pretty memorable incident, right?\n21 A. I remember it, of course.\n22 Q. Of course, because you called the police and told them that\n23 your husband was beating you, but you ended up being the one\n24 who got arrested, correct?\n25 A. Yes, sir.\n\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 186\n1 Q. For disorderly conduct, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. You were released on a recognizance bond, correct?\n4 A. There was no bond.\n5 Q. Do you know what a cognizance bond means?\n6 A. I know I was ROR'd.\n7 Q. OR'd?\n8 A. ROR'd.\n9 Q. So you were let go on a bond that was simply your promise\n10 to appear for the next hearing, correct?\n11 A. I'm not sure.\n12 Q. Did you appear for the next hearing?\n13 A. Oh, no.\n14 Q. Have you ever appeared for the next hearing?\n15 A. I've never subsequently been in Arizona.\n16 Q. So you have never appeared for that next hearing, correct?\n17 A. There was a defective warrant.\n18 Q. There was a defective warrant, what does that mean?\n19 A. I believe there was no date or time or address on it.\n20 Q. So you knew a warrant was issued for you?\n21 A. Not really.\n22 Q. How do you know it was defective if you don't know if it\n23 was issued?\n24 A. The judge in the Bronx deemed it that.\n25 (Continued on next page)\n\nC2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 187\n1 Q. How did a judge in the Bronx come to rule upon whether or\n2 not a warrant was issued by a different sovereign was defective\n3 or not?\n4 A. Because I was a plaintiff in a personal injury case, and\n5 the defense, I guess ran, ran me, for lack of better terms, and\n6 they came up with this warrant and they wanted to bring it up\n7 at trial, and the judge said it's a defective warrant.\n8 Q. I see. So the judge excluded it from evidence, correct?\n9 A. Yes, sir.\n10 Q. Did the judge tell you that the warrant -- when this\n11 hearing that the judge did this on?\n12 A. July 2, 2010.\n13 Q. Now --\n14 A. Somewhere about.\n15 Q. At any time between August 4, 2007 and July 2, 2010, did\n16 you have reason to believe that there was a warrant for your\n17 arrest?\n18 A. Just because I know what happens to people who don't show\n19 up for court, but besides that, no physical proof, no.\n20 Q. So although you did not physically have a copy of the\n21 warrant, you knew that people who do not show up for court get\n22 a warrant issued by the Court, correct?\n23 A. Yes, sir.\n24 Q. Did you think that is something that if Judge Pauley\n25 knew about it that you had skipped on an OR bond and a warrant\n\nC2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 188\n1 had been issued, did you think that would keep you off this\n2 jury?\n3 A. I'm not in a position to answer that.\n4 Q. Why did you hide it, then?\n5 A. I wasn't really thinking about that specific instance.\n6 Q. Had you -- when Judge Pauley asked those questions about\n7 your being -- you understood what the word \"arrest\" meant?\n8 A. Yes, sir.\n9 Q. And you were arrested in August 2007 in Arizona, right?\n10 A. If that's the date, yes.\n11 Q. Had you forgotten about that incident?\n12 A. Of course not.\n13 Q. So did you make a deliberate decision not to disclose that\n14 incident to Judge Pauley?\n15 A. No. It was part of the larger decision not to mention any\n16 of the arrests, sir.\n17 Q. Now, you recall that Judge Pauley also asked whether\n18 anybody's spouse or family, close family member had any arrests\n19 or convictions. Do you recall that?\n20 A. He addressed the chosen panel that was sitting there, yes,\n21 correct.\n22 Q. You understood that that included you.\n23 A. And my husband.\n24 Q. You understood that you were being asked has your husband\n25 ever been arrested or convicted.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (47) Page 185 - Page 188\nDOJ-OGR-00009939",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 185",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. When you did you make the deliberate decision not to reveal\n2 your criminal arrests and convictions?\n3 A. Monday, March 1st, I believe it was the first day of voir\n4 dire, and I was sitting in the third seat. Judge Pauley\n5 started the questioning the second day, I believe that was\n6 Tuesday, March 2nd, with me. It was probably that evening\n7 between the 1st and the 2nd.\n8 Q. You thought that you would be thrown off the jury if you\n9 told the truth, right?\n10 A. Probably.\n11 Q. That's why you lied about it?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. You also lied in not disclosing the fact that you were\n14 arrested in Winslow, Arizona, on August 4th of 2007, correct?\n15 A. I have no idea what the date was.\n16 Q. Do you know that you were arrested in a place called\n17 Winslow, Arizona?\n18 A. Yes, where I was -- yes.\n19 Q. When you were arrested in Winslow, Arizona, that was a\n20 pretty memorable incident, right?\n21 A. I remember it, of course.\n22 Q. Of course, because you called the police and told them that\n23 your husband was beating you, but you ended up being the one\n24 who got arrested, correct?\n25 A. Yes, sir.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 186",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. For disorderly conduct, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. You were released on a recognizance bond, correct?\n4 A. There was no bond.\n5 Q. Do you know what a cognizance bond means?\n6 A. I know I was ROR'd.\n7 Q. OR'd?\n8 A. ROR'd.\n9 Q. So you were let go on a bond that was simply your promise\n10 to appear for the next hearing, correct?\n11 A. I'm not sure.\n12 Q. Did you appear for the next hearing?\n13 A. Oh, no.\n14 Q. Have you ever appeared for the next hearing?\n15 A. I've never subsequently been in Arizona.\n16 Q. So you have never appeared for that next hearing, correct?\n17 A. There was a defective warrant.\n18 Q. There was a defective warrant, what does that mean?\n19 A. I believe there was no date or time or address on it.\n20 Q. So you knew a warrant was issued for you?\n21 A. Not really.\n22 Q. How do you know it was defective if you don't know if it\n23 was issued?\n24 A. The judge in the Bronx deemed it that.\n25 (Continued on next page)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 187",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. How did a judge in the Bronx come to rule upon whether or\n2 not a warrant was issued by a different sovereign was defective\n3 or not?\n4 A. Because I was a plaintiff in a personal injury case, and\n5 the defense, I guess ran, ran me, for lack of better terms, and\n6 they came up with this warrant and they wanted to bring it up\n7 at trial, and the judge said it's a defective warrant.\n8 Q. I see. So the judge excluded it from evidence, correct?\n9 A. Yes, sir.\n10 Q. Did the judge tell you that the warrant -- when this\n11 hearing that the judge did this on?\n12 A. July 2, 2010.\n13 Q. Now --\n14 A. Somewhere about.\n15 Q. At any time between August 4, 2007 and July 2, 2010, did\n16 you have reason to believe that there was a warrant for your\n17 arrest?\n18 A. Just because I know what happens to people who don't show\n19 up for court, but besides that, no physical proof, no.\n20 Q. So although you did not physically have a copy of the\n21 warrant, you knew that people who do not show up for court get\n22 a warrant issued by the Court, correct?\n23 A. Yes, sir.\n24 Q. Did you think that is something that if Judge Pauley\n25 knew about it that you had skipped on an OR bond and a warrant",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU6 Conrad - direct Page 188",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 had been issued, did you think that would keep you off this\n2 jury?\n3 A. I'm not in a position to answer that.\n4 Q. Why did you hide it, then?\n5 A. I wasn't really thinking about that specific instance.\n6 Q. Had you -- when Judge Pauley asked those questions about\n7 your being -- you understood what the word \"arrest\" meant?\n8 A. Yes, sir.\n9 Q. And you were arrested in August 2007 in Arizona, right?\n10 A. If that's the date, yes.\n11 Q. Had you forgotten about that incident?\n12 A. Of course not.\n13 Q. So did you make a deliberate decision not to disclose that\n14 incident to Judge Pauley?\n15 A. No. It was part of the larger decision not to mention any\n16 of the arrests, sir.\n17 Q. Now, you recall that Judge Pauley also asked whether\n18 anybody's spouse or family, close family member had any arrests\n19 or convictions. Do you recall that?\n20 A. He addressed the chosen panel that was sitting there, yes,\n21 correct.\n22 Q. You understood that that included you.\n23 A. And my husband.\n24 Q. You understood that you were being asked has your husband\n25 ever been arrested or convicted.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (47) Page 185 - Page 188",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "A-5656",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009939",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Paul M. Daugerdas",
      "Judge Pauley"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Arizona",
      "Winslow",
      "Bronx"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 15, 2012",
      "August 4, 2007",
      "July 2, 2010",
      "March 1st",
      "March 2nd"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5656",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009939"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript with some handwritten annotations. The transcript appears to be a testimony of a witness in a court case involving Paul M. Daugerdas. The witness is being questioned about their criminal arrests and convictions, and their decision not to disclose this information during the voir dire process."
}