DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
473 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
473 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| CAC3PARC | Speaker (likely an attorney) |
The speaker making the legal argument throughout the transcript.
|
| Mr. Parse | Subject of legal case |
Mentioned as the individual being questioned for potentially defrauding the government.
|
| Honor | Judge |
The person being addressed by the speaker, referred to as 'your Honor'.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Juror |
Identified as the author of a juror's note that is a subject of the legal argument.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case, likely the prosecution.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in relation to the 'Breakiron' case law being cited.
|
Relationships (2)
CAC3PARC, an attorney, is addressing the judge as 'your Honor' while presenting a legal argument in court.
The document discusses whether Mr. Parse was 'defrauding the government,' indicating a legal prosecution of Mr. Parse by the United States government.
Key Quotes (4)
"But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was defrauding the government."Source
— CAC3PARC
(Stating the central issue of intent in the case against Mr. Parse.)
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
Quote #1
"We ended up with an argument about the contents of the note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether there was prejudice here."Source
— CAC3PARC
(Summarizing the current point of contention in the legal proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
Quote #2
"All of this began with the government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits."Source
— CAC3PARC
(Providing background on the legal argument concerning the juror's note and the applicable federal rule of evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
Quote #3
"...you can't draw inferences from the juror's note in deciding whether there was prejudice here for two reasons. One, 606(b) precludes it, and two, that note was written by Catherine Conrad..."Source
— CAC3PARC
(Making the core legal argument against using the juror's note to determine prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,631 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 85 of 117
A-5928
A-5928
26
CAC3PARC
1 But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was
2 defrauding the government. Right.
3 Look, the avalanche of work here was in December. But
4 the question is, if you made a mistake, like in my example, can
5 you undo it. And you have to appreciate what the government
6 has said to you today. It has essentially said if it is a
7 broker's mistake, like in my hypothetical, then maybe a
8 reasonable broker could think you could undo it. But if it is
9 a lawyer's mistake, you can't. And that's a very different
10 version of the annual accounting rule that I've ever heard
11 before. Right. And if my hypothetical is one in which a
12 reasonable broker could think leave it up to the tax lawyers, I
13 am not sure what happened in this case isn't in that same
14 category.
15 We ended up with an argument about the contents of the
16 note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether
17 there was prejudice here. All of this began with the
18 government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits.
19 The one thing I know, and the Third Circuit case in Breakiron
20 is quite good on talking about whether one looks at this
21 subjectively or objectively, you can't draw inferences from
22 the juror's note in deciding whether there was prejudice here
23 for two reasons. One, 606(b) precludes it, and two, that note
24 was written by Catherine Conrad and I still don't think the
25 United States wants to be standing up in a court and saying
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 But the real question is, did Mr. Parse know that that was
2 defrauding the government. Right.
3 Look, the avalanche of work here was in December. But
4 the question is, if you made a mistake, like in my example, can
5 you undo it. And you have to appreciate what the government
6 has said to you today. It has essentially said if it is a
7 broker's mistake, like in my hypothetical, then maybe a
8 reasonable broker could think you could undo it. But if it is
9 a lawyer's mistake, you can't. And that's a very different
10 version of the annual accounting rule that I've ever heard
11 before. Right. And if my hypothetical is one in which a
12 reasonable broker could think leave it up to the tax lawyers, I
13 am not sure what happened in this case isn't in that same
14 category.
15 We ended up with an argument about the contents of the
16 note and how your Honor should interpret them to show whether
17 there was prejudice here. All of this began with the
18 government saying to us be careful, Rule 606(b) has its limits.
19 The one thing I know, and the Third Circuit case in Breakiron
20 is quite good on talking about whether one looks at this
21 subjectively or objectively, you can't draw inferences from
22 the juror's note in deciding whether there was prejudice here
23 for two reasons. One, 606(b) precludes it, and two, that note
24 was written by Catherine Conrad and I still don't think the
25 United States wants to be standing up in a court and saying
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009504
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document