{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": null,
    "document_number": "Case 1:20-cv-00338-PLA Document 616-201 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 67",
    "date": "February 15, 2012",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cv-00338-PLA Document 616-201 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 67 A-5637\n\nFebruary 15, 2012\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 109\n1 know whether you have a reason for doing or not?\n2 A. I'm not sure how to answer that if you're not a\n3 psychologist.\n4 Q. Had you been drinking this morning, Ms. Conrad?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. When was the last time you were drinking?\n7 A. Last night.\n8 Q. How much did you have to drink last night?\n9 A. A cup and a half, maybe.\n10 Q. Of?\n11 A. A liquor.\n12 Q. What kind of liquor?\n13 A. A very cheap vodka.\n14 Q. And before that when was the last time you had been drinking?\n15 A. Sunday, January 8th.\n16 Q. How is it that you remember the date Sunday, January 8th?\n17 A. Because alcoholics generally do that.\n18 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, you last appeared in the federal\n19 courthouse on December 20th to appear before Judge Pauley and\n20 received instructions, is that correct?\n21 A. Yes, you're correct.\n22 Q. Now, during that court appearance, were you intoxicated?\n23 A. No.\n24 Q. Had you had anything to drink?\n25\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 111\n1 correct?\n2 A. Yes, I'm here.\n3 Q. And do you remember you made some statements at that time.\n4 A. I'm sure I did. Thank you.\n5 Q. Did you say, and I quote, \"You're being very stupid, Judge,\n6 and I know you went to Duke and God bless you because I love\n7 all the players there, but you know, come on, this is anything\n8 in favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against\n9 the prosecution. it's ridiculous. If you want another Clinton\n10 appointment, it's not going to happen.\"\n11 A. I absolutely said that. Thank you for refreshing my\n12 recollection.\n13 Q. Now, let me break that down a little bit. When you said,\n14 \"You're being very stupid, Judge,\" what were you referring to?\n15 A. I don't recall.\n16 Q. Well, were you referring to anything?\n17 A. I don't recall.\n18 Q. And when you said, \"I know you went to Duke and God bless\n19 you,\" what were you referring to there?\n20 A. I like his football team.\n21 Q. You like Duke's football team?\n22 A. Yes, sir.\n23 Q. You mean its basketball team?\n24 A. No. Football.\n25 Q. You like Duke's football?\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 110\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. When was the last time before your court appearance on\n3 December 20th that you had anything to drink?\n4 A. The night before.\n5 Q. And had the effects of that alcohol worn off by the time\n6 you arrived in court at noon on December 20th?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And so whatever you did in that court appearance on\n9 December 20th was not caused by alcohol intoxication, is that\n10 correct?\n11 A. I believe it was caused by a subpoena that I had to appear\n12 here, sir.\n13 Q. The things that you said to the Court on that day were not\n14 influenced by being intoxicated at the time, is that correct?\n15 A. I believe you're correct.\n16 Q. And was your behavior, would you characterize your behavior\n17 as rational or irrational?\n18 A. I can't answer that. That's in your eyes, sir.\n19 Q. Now, do you recall that you received some instructions from\n20 the Court?\n21 A. I don't know what you're talking about. When?\n22 Q. On December 20th did you receive some instructions from\n23 Judge Pauley?\n24 A. Of course. I received a subpoena.\n25 Q. And Judge Pauley ordered you to appear today, is that\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 112\n1 A. I know, they're sort of losers, but that's okay.\n2 Q. Is that what you like about them?\n3 A. I'm not going to answer this.\n4 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. Why she likes the\n5 Duke football team?\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Are you under the impression as you sit up there today that\n8 you are the judge of deciding what questions you will and you\n9 will not answer?\n10 A. No, sir.\n11 Q. And yet that's what you just did, correct?\n12 A. I think even yourself sees the ridiculousness (sic) of that\n13 question.\n14 Q. Let me try to repeat that question again. Didn't you just\n15 state, contrary to your own knowledge of legal procedures, that\n16 you were not going to answer my question?\n17 A. I don't understand your question. I'm sorry.\n18 Q. Now, do you feel like you have the same level of\n19 understanding of what's going on around you today that you had\n20 during the trial?\n21 A. I don't understand the meaning of that question.\n22 Q. Now, can you explain to us what Judge Pauley having\n23 attended Duke University had to do with the discussion about\n24 your appearing for a hearing today?\n25 A. Absolutely nothing.\n\nPage 109 - Page 112 (28) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cv-00338-PLA Document 616-201 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 67 A-5637",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "February 15, 2012\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 109\n1 know whether you have a reason for doing or not?\n2 A. I'm not sure how to answer that if you're not a\n3 psychologist.\n4 Q. Had you been drinking this morning, Ms. Conrad?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. When was the last time you were drinking?\n7 A. Last night.\n8 Q. How much did you have to drink last night?\n9 A. A cup and a half, maybe.\n10 Q. Of?\n11 A. A liquor.\n12 Q. What kind of liquor?\n13 A. A very cheap vodka.\n14 Q. And before that when was the last time you had been drinking?\n15 A. Sunday, January 8th.\n16 Q. How is it that you remember the date Sunday, January 8th?\n17 A. Because alcoholics generally do that.\n18 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, you last appeared in the federal\n19 courthouse on December 20th to appear before Judge Pauley and\n20 received instructions, is that correct?\n21 A. Yes, you're correct.\n22 Q. Now, during that court appearance, were you intoxicated?\n23 A. No.\n24 Q. Had you had anything to drink?",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 111\n1 correct?\n2 A. Yes, I'm here.\n3 Q. And do you remember you made some statements at that time.\n4 A. I'm sure I did. Thank you.\n5 Q. Did you say, and I quote, \"You're being very stupid, Judge,\n6 and I know you went to Duke and God bless you because I love\n7 all the players there, but you know, come on, this is anything\n8 in favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against\n9 the prosecution. it's ridiculous. If you want another Clinton\n10 appointment, it's not going to happen.\"\n11 A. I absolutely said that. Thank you for refreshing my\n12 recollection.\n13 Q. Now, let me break that down a little bit. When you said,\n14 \"You're being very stupid, Judge,\" what were you referring to?\n15 A. I don't recall.\n16 Q. Well, were you referring to anything?\n17 A. I don't recall.\n18 Q. And when you said, \"I know you went to Duke and God bless\n19 you,\" what were you referring to there?\n20 A. I like his football team.\n21 Q. You like Duke's football team?\n22 A. Yes, sir.\n23 Q. You mean its basketball team?\n24 A. No. Football.\n25 Q. You like Duke's football?",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 110\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. When was the last time before your court appearance on\n3 December 20th that you had anything to drink?\n4 A. The night before.\n5 Q. And had the effects of that alcohol worn off by the time\n6 you arrived in court at noon on December 20th?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And so whatever you did in that court appearance on\n9 December 20th was not caused by alcohol intoxication, is that\n10 correct?\n11 A. I believe it was caused by a subpoena that I had to appear\n12 here, sir.\n13 Q. The things that you said to the Court on that day were not\n14 influenced by being intoxicated at the time, is that correct?\n15 A. I believe you're correct.\n16 Q. And was your behavior, would you characterize your behavior\n17 as rational or irrational?\n18 A. I can't answer that. That's in your eyes, sir.\n19 Q. Now, do you recall that you received some instructions from\n20 the Court?\n21 A. I don't know what you're talking about. When?\n22 Q. On December 20th did you receive some instructions from\n23 Judge Pauley?\n24 A. Of course. I received a subpoena.\n25 Q. And Judge Pauley ordered you to appear today, is that",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 112\n1 A. I know, they're sort of losers, but that's okay.\n2 Q. Is that what you like about them?\n3 A. I'm not going to answer this.\n4 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. Why she likes the\n5 Duke football team?\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Are you under the impression as you sit up there today that\n8 you are the judge of deciding what questions you will and you\n9 will not answer?\n10 A. No, sir.\n11 Q. And yet that's what you just did, correct?\n12 A. I think even yourself sees the ridiculousness (sic) of that\n13 question.\n14 Q. Let me try to repeat that question again. Didn't you just\n15 state, contrary to your own knowledge of legal procedures, that\n16 you were not going to answer my question?\n17 A. I don't understand your question. I'm sorry.\n18 Q. Now, do you feel like you have the same level of\n19 understanding of what's going on around you today that you had\n20 during the trial?\n21 A. I don't understand the meaning of that question.\n22 Q. Now, can you explain to us what Judge Pauley having\n23 attended Duke University had to do with the discussion about\n24 your appearing for a hearing today?\n25 A. Absolutely nothing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 109 - Page 112 (28) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Conrad",
      "Judge Pauley",
      "MR. OKULA",
      "Clinton"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Duke University"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "federal courthouse"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 15, 2012",
      "December 20th",
      "Sunday, January 8th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cv-00338-PLA",
      "Document 616-201"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with some minor formatting issues. The text is mostly clear and legible."
}