Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad)

The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a Westlaw report concerning a juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms that the report matches the juror's information provided to the firm before voir dire.

The transcript documents Catherine Conrad's testimony in the case United States v. Daugerdas, where she is questioned about her previous statements and actions as a juror, and initially invokes her Fifth Amendment privilege before being granted use immunity.

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her team's research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, and whether she had her team conduct additional research before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team to do so, relying instead on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion.

The transcript captures the cross-examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about the firm's decision-making process during jury selection, specifically regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, and whether she was believed to be a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they did not believe Catherine Conrad was a suspended lawyer based on her responses during voir dire.

The deposition transcript discusses Ms. Edelstein's reaction to learning about a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad and whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person. Ms. Edelstein initially thought it was impossible due to Juror No. 1's voir dire responses, specifically her education level. The questioning focuses on whether further investigation was warranted to verify Juror No. 1's identity.

The deponent, Edelstein, testifies about their conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad, and the investigation into her background. Edelstein assumed Conrad was telling the truth about her education and background during voir dire, and did not ask Trzaskoma for underlying documents supporting her concerns. The conversation highlights potential issues with the juror's identity and the handling of the investigation.