Mr. Parse

The document is a court transcript discussing the case against Mr. Parse, with lawyers debating the defendant's involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud. The defense distinguishes their case from an example given by Shechtman, arguing that Mr. Parse implemented instructions correctly initially. The prosecution references additional evidence detailed in their briefing.

The document is a court transcript discussing the case against Mr. Parse, with lawyers debating the defendant's involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud. The defense distinguishes their case from an example given by Shechtman, arguing that Mr. Parse implemented instructions correctly initially. The prosecution references additional evidence detailed in their briefing.

The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer at Kramer Levin, who represented Raymond Craig Brubaker in the trial of David Parse. Schoeman discusses his involvement in the trial and the role of his partner Barry Berke. He is questioned about a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, read aloud by the Court on May 11, 2011.

The transcript captures a discussion between the court and Mr. Shechtman about the effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel during his trial, the court's views on the likelihood of sentencing vs. trial, and the possibility of finding both a waiver of an impartial jury and effective assistance of counsel.

The document is a court transcript where MS. DAVIS argues that Mr. Parse's attorney made strategic choices that benefited him, and that MR. SHECHTMAN has not met the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court had previously ruled on a motion for a new trial related to Catherine Conrad, a juror who was known to the defendant's law firm, Brune & Richard.

The transcript captures a court hearing where the prosecutor, Ms. Davis, argues that the defense team intentionally concealed information about a juror and discusses the prejudice to the defendant, Mr. Parse, highlighting the evidence of his involvement in corrupt activities.