mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009917.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": null,
    "document_number": "A-5634",
    "date": "February 15, 2012",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,\nFebruary 15, 2012\nPage 97\nC2lrdau3\n1 (Witness excused)\n2 THE COURT: Before the defendants call Juror No. 1, I\n3 have before me an application on behalf of Juror No. 1\n4 concerning closure of the courtroom. I have reviewed the\n5 letter submissions of the parties. Ms. Sternheim, do you wish\n6 to be heard further on that application?\n7 MS. STERNHEIM: Very briefy, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Please. Take brief podium.\n9 MS. STERNHEIM: I am aware that aspects of Ms.\n10 Conrad's alcohol dependence are in the record, as we have heard\n11 today. However, I maintain that she does have the right to\n12 confidentiality regarding her condition and any treatment she\n13 may have received. I do not suggest that it should not be an\n14 area of inquiry, but I don't believe that it needs to be an\n15 area disclosed publicly. The record can be created so that all\n16 the parties of interest in this matter have the facts that they\n17 need to make their respective arguments.\n18 The other part of my letter, which I don't have with\n19 me for the moment, concerns aspects -- does the Court have the\n20 letter there? May I see it? Or does any counsel have a copy?\n21 THE COURT: I've got it.\n22 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.\n23 THE COURT: These letters will be docketed and filed\n24 if they haven't already been.\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: The other aspects were HIPAA concerns\n\nPage 98\nC2lrdau3\n1 regarding her personal medical conditions.\n2 With regard to inquiry concerning the disciplinary\n3 committee, my request is based on the fact that disciplinary\n4 proceedings, at least in the First Department, are not public\n5 proceedings, and it is my understanding that sealed records\n6 were unsealed for the purpose of this matter. However, again,\n7 that I believe was so that the parties would have opportunity\n8 to make their record here. I still maintain because it is a\n9 pending matter in the First Department, it should not be opened\n10 to the public.\n11 Once again, I am not stating in any way that counsel\n12 for either party should not be permitted to inquire. I\n13 understand the relevance of it. However, again, I do not\n14 believe that the inquiry into a matter which in and of itself\n15 was a closed proceeding, although revealed for purposes of\n16 this, and still pending should be a matter dealt with in open\n17 court.\n18 So, my request again is should counsel wish to inquire\n19 into the underlying aspects of an alcohol dependency and the\n20 disciplinary committee and the proceedings, that that be a\n21 matter that is not for public consideration.\n22 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim. Is there any\n23 other matter that you want to bring to the Court's attention\n24 before the witness is called?\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. In connection with\n\nPage 99\nC2lrdau3\n1 my letter, which I know the Court has furnished to counsel, I\n2 informed the Court prior to today that on advice of counsel Ms.\n3 Conrad will be asserting her Fifth Amendment right against\n4 self-incrimination. She will be doing that once called into\n5 this courtroom. Obviously, if she is granted immunity, she\n6 will answer the questions as ordered.\n7 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim.\n8 Does any other counsel wish to be heard further on the\n9 question of the sealing of the courtroom?\n10 MR. GAIR: No, your Honor.\n11 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor.\n12 MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor.\n13 A VOICE: Your Honor, may I be heard?\n14 THE COURT: It's really not necessary. Have a seat.\n15 By letter dated February 8, 2012, Catherine Conrad\n16 requests that any questioning during this hearing concerning\n17 her medical suspension in proceedings held before the\n18 departmental disciplinary committee of the First Judicial\n19 Department be conducted in a closed courtroom.\n20 A party seeking to close the courtroom to the public\n21 must demonstrate \"an overriding interest that is likely to be\n22 prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to\n23 protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable\n24 alternatives to closing the proceeding, and the trial court\n25 must make findings adequate to support the closure.\" Presley\n\nPage 100\nC2lrdau3\n1 v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct 721, 724 (2010) quoting Walker v. Georgia,\n2 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984).\n3 The information Ms. Conrad seeks to shield from public\n4 view has already been disseminated. But the various court\n5 filings in support of the defendants' motion for a new trial\n6 include, among other things, Conrad's disciplinary records and\n7 related court filings and her psychological evaluations. Given\n8 these prior disclosures, there is no overriding interest of Ms.\n9 Conrad that is likely to be prejudiced. Moreover, the rights\n10 of the defendants in this criminal case to a public proceeding\n11 trump Ms. Conrad's own parochial interest. Accordingly, her\n12 application is denied.\n13 I'd ask at this time that the marshals bring Ms.\n14 Conrad out.\n15 MR. OKULA: Your Honor, before they bring her out, may\n16 I be heard briefly?\n17 THE COURT: Certainly.\n18 MR. OKULA: I have spoken with Mr. Gair, and we\n19 understand that the procedure is that Mr. Gair is going to call\n20 Ms. Conrad and that she is going to invoke her Fifth Amendment\n21 rights. Your Honor has before you an application that we have\n22 submitted requesting that she be compelled to testify and be\n23 given use immunity in connection with that testimony.\n24 I want to be perfectly clear that in connection with\n25 this hearing, although Mr. Gair is calling Ms. Conrad as a\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (25) Page 97 - Page 100\nDOI-OGR-00009917",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "February 15, 2012",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 97",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2lrdau3\n1 (Witness excused)\n2 THE COURT: Before the defendants call Juror No. 1, I\n3 have before me an application on behalf of Juror No. 1\n4 concerning closure of the courtroom. I have reviewed the\n5 letter submissions of the parties. Ms. Sternheim, do you wish\n6 to be heard further on that application?\n7 MS. STERNHEIM: Very briefy, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Please. Take brief podium.\n9 MS. STERNHEIM: I am aware that aspects of Ms.\n10 Conrad's alcohol dependence are in the record, as we have heard\n11 today. However, I maintain that she does have the right to\n12 confidentiality regarding her condition and any treatment she\n13 may have received. I do not suggest that it should not be an\n14 area of inquiry, but I don't believe that it needs to be an\n15 area disclosed publicly. The record can be created so that all\n16 the parties of interest in this matter have the facts that they\n17 need to make their respective arguments.\n18 The other part of my letter, which I don't have with\n19 me for the moment, concerns aspects -- does the Court have the\n20 letter there? May I see it? Or does any counsel have a copy?\n21 THE COURT: I've got it.\n22 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.\n23 THE COURT: These letters will be docketed and filed\n24 if they haven't already been.\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: The other aspects were HIPAA concerns",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 98",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2lrdau3\n1 regarding her personal medical conditions.\n2 With regard to inquiry concerning the disciplinary\n3 committee, my request is based on the fact that disciplinary\n4 proceedings, at least in the First Department, are not public\n5 proceedings, and it is my understanding that sealed records\n6 were unsealed for the purpose of this matter. However, again,\n7 that I believe was so that the parties would have opportunity\n8 to make their record here. I still maintain because it is a\n9 pending matter in the First Department, it should not be opened\n10 to the public.\n11 Once again, I am not stating in any way that counsel\n12 for either party should not be permitted to inquire. I\n13 understand the relevance of it. However, again, I do not\n14 believe that the inquiry into a matter which in and of itself\n15 was a closed proceeding, although revealed for purposes of\n16 this, and still pending should be a matter dealt with in open\n17 court.\n18 So, my request again is should counsel wish to inquire\n19 into the underlying aspects of an alcohol dependency and the\n20 disciplinary committee and the proceedings, that that be a\n21 matter that is not for public consideration.\n22 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim. Is there any\n23 other matter that you want to bring to the Court's attention\n24 before the witness is called?\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. In connection with",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 99",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2lrdau3\n1 my letter, which I know the Court has furnished to counsel, I\n2 informed the Court prior to today that on advice of counsel Ms.\n3 Conrad will be asserting her Fifth Amendment right against\n4 self-incrimination. She will be doing that once called into\n5 this courtroom. Obviously, if she is granted immunity, she\n6 will answer the questions as ordered.\n7 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim.\n8 Does any other counsel wish to be heard further on the\n9 question of the sealing of the courtroom?\n10 MR. GAIR: No, your Honor.\n11 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor.\n12 MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor.\n13 A VOICE: Your Honor, may I be heard?\n14 THE COURT: It's really not necessary. Have a seat.\n15 By letter dated February 8, 2012, Catherine Conrad\n16 requests that any questioning during this hearing concerning\n17 her medical suspension in proceedings held before the\n18 departmental disciplinary committee of the First Judicial\n19 Department be conducted in a closed courtroom.\n20 A party seeking to close the courtroom to the public\n21 must demonstrate \"an overriding interest that is likely to be\n22 prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to\n23 protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable\n24 alternatives to closing the proceeding, and the trial court\n25 must make findings adequate to support the closure.\" Presley",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 100",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2lrdau3\n1 v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct 721, 724 (2010) quoting Walker v. Georgia,\n2 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984).\n3 The information Ms. Conrad seeks to shield from public\n4 view has already been disseminated. But the various court\n5 filings in support of the defendants' motion for a new trial\n6 include, among other things, Conrad's disciplinary records and\n7 related court filings and her psychological evaluations. Given\n8 these prior disclosures, there is no overriding interest of Ms.\n9 Conrad that is likely to be prejudiced. Moreover, the rights\n10 of the defendants in this criminal case to a public proceeding\n11 trump Ms. Conrad's own parochial interest. Accordingly, her\n12 application is denied.\n13 I'd ask at this time that the marshals bring Ms.\n14 Conrad out.\n15 MR. OKULA: Your Honor, before they bring her out, may\n16 I be heard briefly?\n17 THE COURT: Certainly.\n18 MR. OKULA: I have spoken with Mr. Gair, and we\n19 understand that the procedure is that Mr. Gair is going to call\n20 Ms. Conrad and that she is going to invoke her Fifth Amendment\n21 rights. Your Honor has before you an application that we have\n22 submitted requesting that she be compelled to testify and be\n23 given use immunity in connection with that testimony.\n24 I want to be perfectly clear that in connection with\n25 this hearing, although Mr. Gair is calling Ms. Conrad as a",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (25) Page 97 - Page 100",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOI-OGR-00009917",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "PAUL M. DAUGERDAS",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Ms. Sternheim",
      "MR. GAIR",
      "MR. OKULA",
      "MR. ROTERT"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS",
      "First Judicial Department",
      "First Department"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 15, 2012",
      "February 8, 2012",
      "2010",
      "1984"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5634",
      "DOI-OGR-00009917",
      "130 S.Ct 721",
      "467 U.S. 39"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript from a hearing on February 15, 2012. The transcript includes discussions about sealing the courtroom, the testimony of Catherine Conrad, and her invocation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}