Judge Pauley

The document is a transcript of witness Conrad's deposition, where they are questioned about their conduct, rationality, and interactions with Judge Pauley. Conrad testifies about their response to a subpoena and their understanding of their right to a lawyer. The deposition highlights Conrad's evasive and sometimes contradictory responses to questioning.

The document is a transcript of witness Conrad's deposition, where they are questioned about their conduct, rationality, and interactions with Judge Pauley. Conrad testifies about their response to a subpoena and their understanding of their right to a lawyer. The deposition highlights Conrad's evasive and sometimes contradictory responses to questioning.

The document is a transcript of a deposition where Conrad is questioned about her alcohol consumption, court appearance, and behavior. She is asked to recall specific statements she made during a previous court appearance before Judge Pauley and to explain her comments about the judge's alma mater, Duke University.

The document is a transcript of the cross-examination of Conrad, a witness in a court case. The questioning focuses on Conrad's statements and behavior during a hearing, including her comment about Judge Pauley and a potential 'Clinton appointment'. Conrad's responses are often evasive or non-committal, leading to further questioning.

The document is a transcript of Conrad's deposition testimony, where they are questioned about their conduct in rejecting a subpoena, their medication, and their understanding of their rights during a hearing with Judge Pauley. Conrad's responses suggest a lack of clarity or cooperation, and the questioning attorney presses for specific details about their interactions with the judge and their financial situation.

The document is a transcript of Ms. Conrad's deposition testimony, where she is questioned about her financial situation, her previous statements to the court, and her interactions with Judge Pauley during voir dire. The testimony reveals potential inconsistencies in her statements and highlights her financial situation and relationship with her husband, a convicted felon.