transcript of a court hearing or oral argument: A-5914
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.
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 (2)
Related Documents (6)
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: A-5923
The document is a court transcript where a prosecutor argues that Mr. Parse was aware of and involved in tax shelter transactions designed to defraud the IRS. The prosecutor cites testimony from various witnesses, including Carrie Yackee and Sandra Burnside, to support their claim. The defense's suggestion that the transactions were approved by Deutsche Bank is countered by the prosecutor's assertion that only Mr. Parse and Carrie Yackee knew the full picture of the transactions.
court transcript: A-5835
The court requests briefing on the implications of granting a new trial and the potential for interlocutory appeal by defendant Parse. Counsel clarifies the court's question, focusing on the possibility of an interlocutory appeal before sentencing.
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.
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: 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.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.