← Back to home

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