mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009927.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": null,
    "document_number": "A-5644",
    "date": "February 15, 2012",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,\nFebruary 15, 2012\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 137\n1 Q. Okay.\n2 A. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle like Mr. Daugerdas.\n3 Q. Would you consider that Mr. Daugerdas was a financially successful lawyer?\n4\n5 A. Sure, ripping off the government.\n6 Q. And would you consider that --\n7 A. And this was only after the trial, might I add.\n8 Q. Would you consider --\n9 A. In keeping with the verdict that myself and eleven other\n10 jurors rendered against your client.\n11 Q. Would you agree with me that you have not been very\n12 financially successful as a lawyer?\n13 A. I am fine, thank you.\n14 Q. Okay. How is it that you're able to pay your $800 a month\n15 in rent?\n16 A. You got that from the financial affidavit as well this\n17 morning. Yes. From savings.\n18 Q. And is that how you pay all your expenses, from savings?\n19 A. I don't have a lot of expenses, so, yes, I'm going to need\n20 a job soon. I'm sure your office is not going to hire me,\n21 but --\n22 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, when you filled out this affidavit today\n23 did you understand that the purpose of this affidavit was to\n24 allow the Court to determine whether or not you had the\n25 financial need for Ms. Sternheim to be appointed and funded by\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 138\n1 the federal court?\n2 A. However that's relevant, but yes.\n3 Q. Now, when you were asked back on December 20th if you owned\n4 any stocks or bonds, you replied to the Court \"none of your\n5 business.\" Is that correct?\n6 A. If it's in the transcript, I probably said it, sir. I\n7 don't specifically recall.\n8 Q. First I'm just asking if you remember it.\n9 A. No, not offhand.\n10 Q. So let's look at the transcript on page 12. You are asked\n11 on line 13, \"Do you own any stocks or bonds?\"\n12 And you said to the Court on line 14, \"None of your\n13 business.\"\n14 Does that refresh your memory that when the Court\n15 asked a question about your ownership of stocks and bonds you\n16 said \"none of your business\"?\n17 A. Not specifically, but I see it written in front of me, so I\n18 must have said it.\n19 Q. But it was the Court's business, was it not?\n20 A. That -- I don't know.\n21 Q. Why did you say \"none of your business\"?\n22 A. It's probably what I felt at the time.\n23 Q. Now, when Judge Pauley asked you or instructed you to take\n24 the oath so that he could ask you questions about your\n25 financial situation, you refused to take the oath, is that\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 139\n1 correct?\n2 A. I don't recall.\n3 Q. And when Judge Pauley advised you that you should get a\n4 lawyer, retain a lawyer, you told him, \"I'll retain myself or\n5 my husband, the convicted felon,\" is that correct?\n6 A. If it's written somewhere I probably said it. I don't\n7 specifically recall, sorry.\n8 Q. So you don't remember telling the Court that you would\n9 either retain yourself or your husband the convicted felon?\n10 A. Where are you directing me to look at?\n11 Q. I'm asking you if you remember it, ma'am?\n12 A. Not specifically.\n13 Q. Do you have memory problems?\n14 A. Certainly not.\n15 Q. Certainly not. Never had blackouts, I take it?\n16 A. I remember every day of this trial.\n17 Q. Have you ever had a blackout?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. And you have no memory problems?\n20 A. No, sir.\n21 Q. And yet you don't remember telling the Court, \"I'll retain\n22 myself or my husband the convicted felon\"?\n23 A. Not specifically.\n24 Q. Is your husband a convicted felon?\n25 A. Yes, sir.\n\nC2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 140\n1 Q. Did you remember that on March 1 and 2nd of 2011 or did you\n2 forget?\n3 A. Sir, I did not reveal that to the Court.\n4 Q. Did you remember it was my question.\n5 A. Well, I'm answering part two of your question that's not\n6 asked yet, but yes.\n7 Q. So you did remember that, right?\n8 A. To repeat it a third time, yes.\n9 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, do you remember that at the start of the\n10 voir dire in this case Judge Pauley explained the purpose of\n11 voir dire?\n12 A. I believe so, yes.\n13 Q. Do you remember that he explained that voir dire means to\n14 speak the truth. Do you remember that?\n15 A. Yes, sir.\n16 Q. And do you remember that Judge Pauley explained to you and\n17 everybody else on the venire that that's precisely what you had\n18 just been sworn to do, to speak the truth.\n19 A. Veneer, yes.\n20 Q. Do you remember that he explained to you that the purpose,\n21 the purpose of voir dire was to make sure that we have a jury\n22 of citizens who will decide the issues in this case fairly and\n23 impartially and without any bias or prejudice in favor of\n24 either side or against either side. Do you remember saying\n25 that?\n\nMINI-Script SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (35) Page 137 - Page 140\nDOJ-OGR-00009927",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,\nFebruary 15, 2012",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 137\n1 Q. Okay.\n2 A. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle like Mr. Daugerdas.\n3 Q. Would you consider that Mr. Daugerdas was a financially successful lawyer?\n4\n5 A. Sure, ripping off the government.\n6 Q. And would you consider that --\n7 A. And this was only after the trial, might I add.\n8 Q. Would you consider --\n9 A. In keeping with the verdict that myself and eleven other\n10 jurors rendered against your client.\n11 Q. Would you agree with me that you have not been very\n12 financially successful as a lawyer?\n13 A. I am fine, thank you.\n14 Q. Okay. How is it that you're able to pay your $800 a month\n15 in rent?\n16 A. You got that from the financial affidavit as well this\n17 morning. Yes. From savings.\n18 Q. And is that how you pay all your expenses, from savings?\n19 A. I don't have a lot of expenses, so, yes, I'm going to need\n20 a job soon. I'm sure your office is not going to hire me,\n21 but --\n22 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, when you filled out this affidavit today\n23 did you understand that the purpose of this affidavit was to\n24 allow the Court to determine whether or not you had the\n25 financial need for Ms. Sternheim to be appointed and funded by",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 138\n1 the federal court?\n2 A. However that's relevant, but yes.\n3 Q. Now, when you were asked back on December 20th if you owned\n4 any stocks or bonds, you replied to the Court \"none of your\n5 business.\" Is that correct?\n6 A. If it's in the transcript, I probably said it, sir. I\n7 don't specifically recall.\n8 Q. First I'm just asking if you remember it.\n9 A. No, not offhand.\n10 Q. So let's look at the transcript on page 12. You are asked\n11 on line 13, \"Do you own any stocks or bonds?\"\n12 And you said to the Court on line 14, \"None of your\n13 business.\"\n14 Does that refresh your memory that when the Court\n15 asked a question about your ownership of stocks and bonds you\n16 said \"none of your business\"?\n17 A. Not specifically, but I see it written in front of me, so I\n18 must have said it.\n19 Q. But it was the Court's business, was it not?\n20 A. That -- I don't know.\n21 Q. Why did you say \"none of your business\"?\n22 A. It's probably what I felt at the time.\n23 Q. Now, when Judge Pauley asked you or instructed you to take\n24 the oath so that he could ask you questions about your\n25 financial situation, you refused to take the oath, is that",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 139\n1 correct?\n2 A. I don't recall.\n3 Q. And when Judge Pauley advised you that you should get a\n4 lawyer, retain a lawyer, you told him, \"I'll retain myself or\n5 my husband, the convicted felon,\" is that correct?\n6 A. If it's written somewhere I probably said it. I don't\n7 specifically recall, sorry.\n8 Q. So you don't remember telling the Court that you would\n9 either retain yourself or your husband the convicted felon?\n10 A. Where are you directing me to look at?\n11 Q. I'm asking you if you remember it, ma'am?\n12 A. Not specifically.\n13 Q. Do you have memory problems?\n14 A. Certainly not.\n15 Q. Certainly not. Never had blackouts, I take it?\n16 A. I remember every day of this trial.\n17 Q. Have you ever had a blackout?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. And you have no memory problems?\n20 A. No, sir.\n21 Q. And yet you don't remember telling the Court, \"I'll retain\n22 myself or my husband the convicted felon\"?\n23 A. Not specifically.\n24 Q. Is your husband a convicted felon?\n25 A. Yes, sir.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 140\n1 Q. Did you remember that on March 1 and 2nd of 2011 or did you\n2 forget?\n3 A. Sir, I did not reveal that to the Court.\n4 Q. Did you remember it was my question.\n5 A. Well, I'm answering part two of your question that's not\n6 asked yet, but yes.\n7 Q. So you did remember that, right?\n8 A. To repeat it a third time, yes.\n9 Q. Now, Ms. Conrad, do you remember that at the start of the\n10 voir dire in this case Judge Pauley explained the purpose of\n11 voir dire?\n12 A. I believe so, yes.\n13 Q. Do you remember that he explained that voir dire means to\n14 speak the truth. Do you remember that?\n15 A. Yes, sir.\n16 Q. And do you remember that Judge Pauley explained to you and\n17 everybody else on the venire that that's precisely what you had\n18 just been sworn to do, to speak the truth.\n19 A. Veneer, yes.\n20 Q. Do you remember that he explained to you that the purpose,\n21 the purpose of voir dire was to make sure that we have a jury\n22 of citizens who will decide the issues in this case fairly and\n23 impartially and without any bias or prejudice in favor of\n24 either side or against either side. Do you remember saying\n25 that?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MINI-Script SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (35) Page 137 - Page 140\nDOJ-OGR-00009927",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Daugerdas",
      "Ms. Conrad",
      "Judge Pauley",
      "Ms. Sternheim"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 15, 2012",
      "December 20th",
      "March 1 and 2nd of 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5644",
      "C2FFDAU4",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009927"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript from a trial involving Paul M. Daugerdas. The transcript includes testimony from a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is being questioned by a lawyer. The testimony covers various topics, including her financial situation, her husband's status as a convicted felon, and her understanding of the voir dire process."
}