@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5904
AI Analysis
Summary: The transcript records the oral argument on David Parse's motion for a new trial, with his attorney Paul Shechtman arguing that Parse received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court is familiar with the Strickland standard, a two-part test for determining ineffective assistance. Shechtman believes that if they reach the prejudice prong, they are likely to prevail.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the oral argument on a defendant's motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a significant issue in the case.
Key Topics:
motion for a new trial
ineffective assistance of counsel
Strickland standard
Key People:
- David Parse - defendant
- Paul Shechtman - defendant's attorney
- Nanette Davis - government attorney
- Stanley J. Okula, Jr. - government attorney
- Justice O'Connor - Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Strickland opinion
Full Text
CAC3PARC
2
1 (In open court)
2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Case of United States of America v.
3 David Parse. Appearances for the government?
4 MS. DAVIS: Good afternoon, your Honor. Nanette Davis
5 and Stanley J. Okula, Jr. for the government.
6 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Ms. Davis.
7 MR. SCHECHTMAN: Paul Shechtman for Mr. Parse. Ali
8 Feingold who is a paralegal who has worked on this matter is
9 with me, and obviously Mr. Parse is here.
10 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Shechtman. And I note
11 the presence of Mr. Parse at counsel table.
12 This is oral argument on the defendant Parse's motion
13 for a new trial. Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Shechtman?
14 MR. SCHECHTMAN: I do, your Honor. As your Honor now
15 knows and from the papers, there is only one issue here which
16 is a question of ineffective assistance of counsel.
17 THE COURT: If you can just pull the mike a little
18 closer. It has been a long week.
19 MR. SCHECHTMAN: I understand. I think for all of us.
20 Justice O'Connor once said that Strickland was the
21 most cited case that she ever wrote, and I say that because I
22 assume the Court is quite familiar with it and the legal
23 standard. And obviously the standard is two part.
24 I would like to think though, I may be proven wrong,
25 that if we get to prejudice, we should prevail. But we can
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300