Full Text
23
CAC3PARC 23
1 has stated that you can find that where there has been a split
2 verdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a
3 lack of prejudice. We had argued in the original motion for
4 new trial and we renew that as well.
5 Finally, your Honor, with regard to the letter of
6 Catherine Conrad to the government which was referenced in the
7 defendant's briefing, she talked about their discussions and
8 deliberations with regard to David Parse. And interestingly
9 what she also said, which was not mentioned when Mr. Shechtman in
10 his brief, was that that struggle ended when they asked the
11 Court to reread the definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
12 Different states for different counts.
13 MR. SHECHTMAN: Well, I'll wait. I apologize to the
14 Court.
15 MS. DAVIS: And interestingly, their verdict exactly
16 tracked that difference between wilfully, this was required in
17 the conspiracy count and for the tax evasion counts, and
18 knowingly which was really the mens rea relating to other ones.
19 So you might say that they had a struggle.
20 To the extent we can even be considering that letter
21 at all because of Rule 606(b), but I think it's quite clear
22 that they made a deliberate and informed decision about making
23 a distinction drawn on the evidence as apply to the law. Thank
24 you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Davis.
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300