mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010068.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "106",
    "document_number": "A-5785",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 328\n1 which was the information that we had and Ms. Conrad had\n2 unambiguously stated that she had a BA in English literature,\n3 that that was her highest level of education, that she was a\n4 stay-at-home wife, and I assumed that Ms. Conrad was telling\n5 the truth when she responded on voir dire.\n6 It just was inconceivable to me that she was the same\n7 person. I wasn't thinking about middle initials. I know that\n8 in hindsight we now know that they're the same person and that\n9 they have the same middle initial, but at the time I had no\n10 idea that Juror No. 1's middle initial was M.\n11 Q. Theresa Trzaskoma didn't tell you that the report that she\n12 had seen on either e-mail or otherwise had the middle initial\n13 with M. for Catherine M. Conrad, the suspended New York\n14 attorney?\n15 A. Ms. Trzaskoma did not mention any report.\n16 Q. Did Ms. Trzaskoma mention to you the Westlaw printout that\n17 she had seen that had various biographical information for\n18 someone named Catherine M. Conrad?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for any of the underlying\n21 documents that led to her belief that Juror No. 1 may be the\n22 same Catherine M. Conrad who was a suspended New York attorney?\n23 Yes or no, did you ask for any documents?\n24 A. I did not ask for any documents, no.\n25 Q. How long did this conversation between you and Ms.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010068",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 328",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 which was the information that we had and Ms. Conrad had\n2 unambiguously stated that she had a BA in English literature,\n3 that that was her highest level of education, that she was a\n4 stay-at-home wife, and I assumed that Ms. Conrad was telling\n5 the truth when she responded on voir dire.\n6 It just was inconceivable to me that she was the same\n7 person. I wasn't thinking about middle initials. I know that\n8 in hindsight we now know that they're the same person and that\n9 they have the same middle initial, but at the time I had no\n10 idea that Juror No. 1's middle initial was M.\n11 Q. Theresa Trzaskoma didn't tell you that the report that she\n12 had seen on either e-mail or otherwise had the middle initial\n13 with M. for Catherine M. Conrad, the suspended New York\n14 attorney?\n15 A. Ms. Trzaskoma did not mention any report.\n16 Q. Did Ms. Trzaskoma mention to you the Westlaw printout that\n17 she had seen that had various biographical information for\n18 someone named Catherine M. Conrad?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for any of the underlying\n21 documents that led to her belief that Juror No. 1 may be the\n22 same Catherine M. Conrad who was a suspended New York attorney?\n23 Yes or no, did you ask for any documents?\n24 A. I did not ask for any documents, no.\n25 Q. How long did this conversation between you and Ms.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010068",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Ms. Conrad",
      "Theresa Trzaskoma",
      "Catherine M. Conrad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5785",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010068"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}