DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (min-u-script)
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (dated Feb 15, 2012) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely the infamous Juror 50 from the Daugerdas trial) regarding her bias, her admission to 'Googling' the judge and attorneys, and her 'smart a-s-s' comments about Judge Pauley being a 'Clinton appointee.' This transcript was likely used in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness |
Being cross-examined about her behavior, potential bias, and internet searches of the judge and attorneys. She admits...
|
| Mr. Okula | Attorney |
Makes objections during the examination.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge (mentioned) |
Subject of the witness's commentary and Google searches. The witness noted he was a 'Clinton appointee'.
|
| Paul M. Daugerdas | Defendant |
Named in the case caption (United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.).
|
| Clinton | Former President (mentioned) |
Mentioned in relation to judicial appointments.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters |
Reporting agency responsible for the transcript.
|
|
| Duke University |
Mentioned as the university Judge Pauley attended 30 years prior.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009242.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Place of education for Judge Pauley and the questioning attorney.
|
Relationships (1)
Conrad discusses Googling the judge and making comments about his political appointment.
Key Quotes (5)
"I Googled you."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
Quote #1
"Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks, isn't that correct?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
Quote #2
"If you want another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
Quote #3
"Smart a-s-s."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
Quote #4
"Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,901 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 08/24/22 Page 20 of 67
A-5638
A-5638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
February 15, 2012
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
February 15, 2012
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 113
1 Q. It was irrational, was it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 A. I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a
5 psychologist.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that at least there was no
7 logical connection between Judge Pauley having attended Duke
8 University 30 years or more ago and the hearing that you were
9 present for and the instructions you were receiving on
10 December 20th.
11 A. You went there too, but I really don't know what your
12 question means.
13 Q. When you say you went there too, you mean I went there too?
14 A. Yes. I Googled you.
15 Q. And you know that I attended that as an undergraduate?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Is that responsive to the question I just asked you?
18 A. I told you, I can't answer your question, sir.
19 Q. I have now posed a different question. I am now asking you
20 to explain for us whether there's a logical connection between
21 Judge Pauley's attendance at Duke University and your statement
22 to the Court in the proceedings on December 20th?
23 A. I can't parse it down. I'm not a psychologist, sir.
24 Q. Now, then you went on to say, "Come on, this is anything in
25 favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the
1 Q. It was irrational, was it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 A. I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a
5 psychologist.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that at least there was no
7 logical connection between Judge Pauley having attended Duke
8 University 30 years or more ago and the hearing that you were
9 present for and the instructions you were receiving on
10 December 20th.
11 A. You went there too, but I really don't know what your
12 question means.
13 Q. When you say you went there too, you mean I went there too?
14 A. Yes. I Googled you.
15 Q. And you know that I attended that as an undergraduate?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Is that responsive to the question I just asked you?
18 A. I told you, I can't answer your question, sir.
19 Q. I have now posed a different question. I am now asking you
20 to explain for us whether there's a logical connection between
21 Judge Pauley's attendance at Duke University and your statement
22 to the Court in the proceedings on December 20th?
23 A. I can't parse it down. I'm not a psychologist, sir.
24 Q. Now, then you went on to say, "Come on, this is anything in
25 favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 115
1 filed in the court, sir. Everyone can look it up. It's a
2 matter of public record.
3 Q. And in your judgment the motion was ridiculous, is that
4 what you meant to convey?
5 A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall.
6 Q. Well, when you said it was ridiculous, what did you mean?
7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Well, did you mean that you thought there was no merit to
9 it?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. I mean, you know there's merit to it, right?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Do you know -- I'm not asking about your recall right now,
14 I'm asking you whether or not there is merit to a motion that
15 said you came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1,
16 2011.
17 MR. OKULA: Objection to the form, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
19 Q. So you don't know why you said it was ridiculous?
20 A. You're correct. I'm not a psychologist.
21 Q. Now, when you went on to tell Judge Pauley "If you want
22 another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen" -- do
23 you remember saying that?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. So you do not remember saying that?
1 filed in the court, sir. Everyone can look it up. It's a
2 matter of public record.
3 Q. And in your judgment the motion was ridiculous, is that
4 what you meant to convey?
5 A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall.
6 Q. Well, when you said it was ridiculous, what did you mean?
7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Well, did you mean that you thought there was no merit to
9 it?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. I mean, you know there's merit to it, right?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Do you know -- I'm not asking about your recall right now,
14 I'm asking you whether or not there is merit to a motion that
15 said you came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1,
16 2011.
17 MR. OKULA: Objection to the form, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
19 Q. So you don't know why you said it was ridiculous?
20 A. You're correct. I'm not a psychologist.
21 Q. Now, when you went on to tell Judge Pauley "If you want
22 another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen" -- do
23 you remember saying that?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. So you do not remember saying that?
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 114
1 prosecution. It's ridiculous." Now, what were you trying to
2 get at when you said "this is anything in favor of the
3 defendants"?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Well, what you were trying to get at is --
6 A. Are you testifying for me, sir?
7 Q. What you were trying to get at, ma'am, you thought that
8 anything that might be in favor of the defendants would be
9 ridiculous, is that correct?
10 A. Absolutely not.
11 Q. Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks,
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. Absolutely not.
14 Q. You haven't decided that?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. Did you think -- and when you said and they brought the
17 motion against the prosecution did you think that Judge Pauley
18 was unaware of who filed the motion and who was responding to
19 the motion concerning the request for a new trial?
20 A. You have to break that question down for me, because Pacer
21 is a public record, sir.
22 Q. Can you explain to me what the fact that Pacer is a public
23 record has to do with the question of whether Judge Pauley
24 would know who filed the motion?
25 A. Of course. It's a matter of public record and it's what's
1 prosecution. It's ridiculous." Now, what were you trying to
2 get at when you said "this is anything in favor of the
3 defendants"?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Well, what you were trying to get at is --
6 A. Are you testifying for me, sir?
7 Q. What you were trying to get at, ma'am, you thought that
8 anything that might be in favor of the defendants would be
9 ridiculous, is that correct?
10 A. Absolutely not.
11 Q. Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks,
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. Absolutely not.
14 Q. You haven't decided that?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. Did you think -- and when you said and they brought the
17 motion against the prosecution did you think that Judge Pauley
18 was unaware of who filed the motion and who was responding to
19 the motion concerning the request for a new trial?
20 A. You have to break that question down for me, because Pacer
21 is a public record, sir.
22 Q. Can you explain to me what the fact that Pacer is a public
23 record has to do with the question of whether Judge Pauley
24 would know who filed the motion?
25 A. Of course. It's a matter of public record and it's what's
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 116
1 A. If it's in the record, I probably did say that, sir.
2 Q. Okay, so it's in the record. So why did you say it?
3 A. Probably just being smart.
4 Q. Just being smart.
5 A. Smart a-s-s.
6 Q. So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that
7 what you call it?
8 A. If you need to say it that way, that's your words, not
9 mine.
10 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you this: Are you under the
11 impression that the President of the United States is named
12 Clinton?
13 A. I Googled -- no. Please, stop. No.
14 Q. Why did you refer to another Clinton appointment?
15 A. Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I
16 saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story. Why don't we
17 get on to the meat of this?
18 Q. Ms. Conrad, can you explain for us the connection between
19 Judge Pauley ordering you to appear for a hearing on
20 February 15th and the prospect that Judge Pauley would receive
21 another appointment to the bench from somebody --
22 A. No.
23 Q. -- who is not President?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that in the common parlance that
1 A. If it's in the record, I probably did say that, sir.
2 Q. Okay, so it's in the record. So why did you say it?
3 A. Probably just being smart.
4 Q. Just being smart.
5 A. Smart a-s-s.
6 Q. So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that
7 what you call it?
8 A. If you need to say it that way, that's your words, not
9 mine.
10 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you this: Are you under the
11 impression that the President of the United States is named
12 Clinton?
13 A. I Googled -- no. Please, stop. No.
14 Q. Why did you refer to another Clinton appointment?
15 A. Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I
16 saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story. Why don't we
17 get on to the meat of this?
18 Q. Ms. Conrad, can you explain for us the connection between
19 Judge Pauley ordering you to appear for a hearing on
20 February 15th and the prospect that Judge Pauley would receive
21 another appointment to the bench from somebody --
22 A. No.
23 Q. -- who is not President?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that in the common parlance that
Min-U-Script SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (29) Page 113 - Page 116
DOJ-OGR-00009242
DOJ-OGR-00009242
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document