Hello welcome to this edition of the JACPA Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the interesting media reports about the suspended New York lawyer who failed to disclose on voir dire in a federal criminal case that she was a suspended lawyer (and had been denied reinstatement) and her prior criminal history in order to be picked for a jury which convicted the defendants (two of whom were lawyers), of a tax evasion scheme.
According to the media reports, the suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, was identified as Juror #1 on a jury panel that convicted two lawyers and others of multiple counts of felony tax evasion and other criminal charges. The case is United States v. Daugerdas et. al, S3 09 Cr 581 (WHP). She reportedly failed to advise prosecutors and defense lawyers (and the judge) that she had a criminal history, was suspended from practice in New York for problems associated with severe alcoholism, and that her husband was a convicted felon who served seven years behind bars in New Jersey.
After the verdict, the lawyers representing one of the convicted defendants filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they had discovered the suspended lawyer/juror had lied about her identity; however, prosecutors argued that Theresa Trzaskoma, a lawyer representing one of the defendants, knew about the lawyer’s identity within two hours of the start of jury deliberations on May 12, 2011 and that she shared her concerns with other employees of the same law firm. The prosecutors argued that this constitutes a waiver of any right to request a new trial.
Trzaskoma said in her testimony she awoke on the morning of May 12, 2011 wondering why the juror (who did not disclose a lawyer), sent a note to the judge asking questions about respondeat superior and vicarious liability. Trzaskoma then began an investigation with the help of a paralegal and learned from Westlaw that the juror had the same last name as a suspended New York lawyer. She sent an e-mail saying, “OK, unless Conrad totally lied about her highest level of education, it can’t be the same person as the suspended lawyer. But let’s keep a little dossier on her.”
In another e-mail, Trzaskoma said, “Jesus, I do think it’s her” but she stated at a hearing that there was confusion regarding the lawyer’s real identity and that she and her colleagues simply could not believe she was the same person as the suspended attorney since the possibility “was just so far out there, so remote” that they dismissed it.
According to reports; however, the fact section of the memorandum supporting the motion for a new trial failed to mention either the suspicions or the investigation. The motion was also filed only after the lead prosecutor disclosed to the judge he had received a post-trial note from the suspended lawyer/juror stating, “KUDOS to you and your team.” When questioned, Trzaskoma expressed “regret” for not including the investigation and her suspicions in the memorandum and stated “I regret the brief conveyed the impression it had never occurred to us before”; however, she continued to claim that she did not have enough information at trial.
The judge reminded Trzaskoma that on May 16, 2011, the third day of deliberations, he had excused one juror for medical reasons, seated an alternate, and then instructed the panel to start the deliberations again and asked “(d)uring that entire episode, did you ever revisit the question of Juror #1 and the possibility that she might be someone other than who she said she was?” the judge asked. She answered “I did not. I genuinely believed that Juror #1 was who she said she was.”
The suspended lawyer/juror also apparently also behaved erratically at a December 20, 2011 hearing in which the judge said she would be subpoenaed to testify at the February 15, 2012 hearing. “I reject it and you’re going to have to arrest me because nothing is going to change,” she stated at the hearing. “They’re fricken crooks and they should be in jail and you know that. Good.” The suspended lawyer/juror called the judge’s chambers at 7:52 a.m. on February 15, telling a judge’s deputy, “I will not be coming and I will not testify.” Shortly after the February 15, 2012 hearing began at 9:30 a.m., the judge issued a warrant for her arrest.
The suspended lawyer/juror was then taken into custody at her Bronxville home on February 15, 2012 by U.S. marshals and, after she was led into the courtroom, the judge instructed her court-appointed lawyer to sit in the jury box as close as possible to the witness stand to keep her on track. She invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify and the judge then granted her “use immunity” for the testimony which prevents the prosecution from using her testimony or any evidence derived from the testimony against her in any subsequent proceedings.
The judge asked the suspended lawyer/juror why she perjured herself when she answered the voir dire questions. She responded that, although she was unemployed, it was not for the money; however, she missed the dynamics of the courtroom. According to the Daily News she also said “I thought I would seem more juror-marketable”.
Bottom line: This is a somewhat bizarre story and possibly the most bizarre/interesting part of this story is that someone actually wanted to be on a jury (and lied to get on it).
Be careful out there!
As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. CORSMEIER, P.A.
PROVIDES ETHICS ADVICE AND EXPERT OPINIONS TO LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS
DEFENDS LAWYERS IN BAR MISSION AND DISCIPLINE CASES
(AND MUCH MORE!)
My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms. If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at email@example.com. You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida. I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.
You are receiving this ETHICS ALERT since you are a current or former client or you have requested that this Update be sent to you. Please note that you may opt in or out of receiving this ETHICS ALERT any time. If you would like to discontinue receipt of this ETHICS ALERT or if you would like to begin receiving it, simply send me an e-mail to me advising of your request.
If there are others at your firm who would like to be included on the distribution list, please feel free to forward this update to them or let us know in an email. If you would like to forward this Ethics Alert to any person or entity please feel free do so as long as it is not for personal gain and you forward the entire email, including all contact information and disclaimers.
Disclaimer: this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.
Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.