DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg

Case TAECIOOS8O- EAU TBOCUEA AN 633 Filed@2z/e4/22gePaged 35 of 67 February 15, 2012 /C2trdau3 vf 2 3 4 wot nam fF Ww kh Page 93 - Page 96 (24) C2frdau3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., Trzaskoma - redirect A. No, Lactually thought that the more likely explanation | 1 was that the Westlaw report was conflating two people, two | 2 people named Catherine Conrad, one who was our jurorandone | 3 who was the suspended lawyer. 4 Q. During your conversation with Ms. Edelstein and Ms. Brune | 5 or at any point afterwards, did anyone discourage you from | 6 pursuing any additional information about Catherine Conrad or | 7 the Westlaw report that had been sent to you? 8 A, No. I believe, as I told you earlier, at the conclusion of | 9 my discussion with Ms. Edelstein and Ms, Brune I said something 10 along the lines of, do we need to do anything further, and Ms. | 11 Brune said, no, just leave it. Based on that, [called Mr. 12 Benhamou. 13 I went to my children's school to pick them up forthe 14 first time in many months, maybe years, and on my way to pick $15 them up at school, my recollection is I called Mr, Benhamou ta 16 ask him whether he had gotten the lawsuit. He said thathe 17 hadn't, that they couldn't find it online, and if we wantedto 18 get it, our managing clerk would have to go to the Bronxinthe 19 morning. I said, we don't think it is her, so you can stand 20 down. 21 Q. Did at any point anyone suggest that you not send any 22 emails about Conrad any further? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You said that you weren't aware of any other juror | 25 Trzaskoma - redirect Page 94 ray misconduct case where the lies of this magnitude were involved. Do you remember that testimony? 2 A. Ido. 3 Q. Do you recall on direct you testified that in your mindon | 4 May 12th there were two possibilities: There was eitherthe 5 possibility that Conrad had lied during voir dire orthe 6 7 8 9 information you had was for the wrong person? A. Yes, Q. Is it fair to say that in your mind on May 12th they were not just lies that you were contemplating but in your mind 10 unprecedented lies as one possibility? 11 A. I think that what 1 understood Mr. Shechtman to be asking 12 me was about the totality of Ms. Conrad's lies. | cantell you 13 that on May 12th I certainly did not contemplate that Ms. 14 Conrad was not only a suspended lawyer but was on criminal | 15 probation, had been arrested numerous times, had a bench | 16 warrant for her arrest, was a severe alcoholic, and was married | 17 toa man who himself had served 7 years in a New Jersey state | 18 prison. That never entered my head. 19 Q. Those facts that you had you didn't have during the trial, | 20 right? 21 A. We did not. 22 Q. If you had researched Ms. Conrad's civil lawsuit, you might | 23 have learned about them during the trial, right? /24 A. It's possible, but it took us along time to put things | 25 Page 93 C2frdau3 C2frdau3 Trzaskoma - redirect Page 95 together. And we were benefited greatly by the fact that Ms. Conrad had included her phone number at the top of her letter to Mr. Okula. Q. You are conflating two issues, My question is about the civil lawsuit. You had a chance to review those documents after the trial, night? A. I did. Q. You know that in Ms, Conrad's testimony in that suit she says she has a law degree, right? A, Idid, But it took me days to pull all that together and to find that in the files. Q. Weren't there several days between May 12th and the jury verdict? A. Yes, Q. With respect to the motion that you filed, did you make a conscious decision not to disclose the information that you had in your possession during the trial in your motion? A. No, it was not, in my mind. MR. HERNANDEZ: May | have a moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Take your time. MR. HERNANDEZ: No further questions, your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Shechtman. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHECHTMAN: Q. Ms. Trzaskoma, at any time were you trying to sandbag the Trzaskoma - recross Page 96 Court or plant error in the record as to Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad? A. Absolutely not. MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions. THE COURT: Ms, Trzaskoma, I have a question for you. On the third day of jury deliberations, May 16th, this Court was confronted with a juror who needed to have an emergency medical procedure. After conferring with all counsel and over the government's objection, I excused Juror No. 11, replaced Juror No. 1] with an alternate, and instructed the jury to restart anew their jury deliberations. During that entire episode did you ever revisit the question of Juror No. | and the possibility that she might be someone other than who she said she was in voir dire? THE WITNESS: I did not. I genuinely believed that Juror No. 1 was who she said she was. THE COURT: Any further inquiry based upon the Counts inquiry? MR. HERNANDEZ: No, your Honor. MR. SKLARSKY: No, your Honor. MR. SHECHTMAN: No, your Honor. MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor. MS, McCARTHY: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Trzaskoma, you are excused as a witness. You may step down. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS rit yi DOJ-OGR- 00009237