transcript of a court hearing or oral argument: A-5914
Summary
The document is a transcript of an oral argument where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is discussing the ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice prong in a case involving multiple defendants and allegations of backdating. He argues that the government's case focused on backdating, but the evidence shows a more complex situation. The attorney compares his client's situation to that of another defendant, Mr. Brubaker.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
transcript of a court hearing: A-5926
The transcript captures Mr. Shechtman's argument before the judge, where he disputes the government's claim that Mr. Parse benefited from a strategic choice, specifically referencing a juror's behavior and the split verdict.
transcript of a court hearing: A-5912
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.
court transcript: A-5918
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.
transcript of a court hearing or deposition: A-5920
The document discusses the defense's decision not to disclose information about a juror during voir dire or after an investigation, and the government's argument that this was a tactical choice that cannot form the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defense considered several alternatives but chose to do nothing. The government's view is that this conscious and deliberate choice was a strategic decision.
court transcript: 1:20-cr-00303-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22
The transcript shows the redirect examination of witness Ms. Edelstein, with the court asking questions about the disclosure of information regarding Juror No. 1 and whether the law firm would have disclosed it without the court's inquiry or the government's action. The witness responds that they thought it would come out at some point during the proceedings.
court transcript: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117
The transcript captures a discussion between the court and lawyer MR. SHECHTMAN regarding the alleged lack of candor by lawyers Brune & Richard and whether their actions were circumstantial evidence of a strategic decision to game the system.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.