← Back to home

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