@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5918
AI Analysis
Summary: 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.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the prosecution's argument that the defendant's attorney made strategic choices that benefited the defendant, and that the defendant cannot show ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.
Key Topics:
ineffective assistance of counsel
strategic choices made by defendant's attorney
application of the Strickland standard
Key People:
- MS. DAVIS - Prosecutor
- MR. SHECHTMAN - Defendant's attorney
- Mr. Parse - Defendant
Full Text
CAC3PARC 16
1 MS. DAVIS: Yes, please, your Honor.
2 Good afternoon, your Honor. I'm glad to see that
3 Mr. Shechtman has conceded that other than this particular
4 area, Mr. Parse did in fact receive what can only be described
5 as a platinum plated defense with a defense team that most
6 defendants can only dream of.
7 MR. SHECHTMAN: I don't think I quite went that far,
8 your Honor.
9 MS. DAVIS: I do think, though, that had Mr. Shechtman
10 been here at trial and seen the forces that were mustered in
11 Mr. Parse's favor, he would have to admit that it is a rare
12 scene in such a courtroom for an individual defendant.
13 Your Honor, the crux of it is that defendant Parse is
14 seeking to be rewarded now for the strategic choices of his
15 attorney regarding Catherine Conrad and their knowledge of her.
16 Choices for which he has already benefited in the form of
17 acquittals on the conspiracy and the tax evasion counts. We
18 submit, as we said in our papers, that we believe that
19 Mr. Shechtman has met neither prong of the Strickland standard
20 in that he cannot show ineffective assistance of counsel and he
21 cannot show prejudice.
22 This Court in its ruling on the motion for new trial
23 regarding Catherine Conrad has already found that the Brune &
24 Richard law firm knew that Catherine Conrad and Juror No. 1
25 were the same person and chose to gamble with the jury that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010173