DOJ-OGR-00009238.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 36 of 67 A-5634 February 15, 2012 Page 97 (Witness excused) THE COURT: Before the defendants call Juror No. 1, I have before me an application on behalf of Juror No. 1 concerning closure of the courtroom. I have reviewed the letter submissions of the parties. Ms. Sternheim, do you wish to be heard further on that application? MS. STERNHEIM: Very brief briefly, your Honor. I am aware that aspects of Ms. Conrad's alcohol dependence are in the record, as we have heard today. However, I maintain that she does have the right to confidentiality regarding her condition and any treatment she may have received. I do not suggest that it should not be an area of inquiry, but I don't believe that it needs to be an area disclosed publicly. The record can be created so that all the parties of interest in this matter have the facts that they need to make their respective arguments. THE COURT: I've got it. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. THE COURT: These letters will be docketed and filed if they haven't already been. MS. STERNHEIM: The other aspects were HIPAA concerns regarding her personal medical conditions. With regard to inquiry concerning the disciplinary committee, my request is based on the fact that disciplinary proceedings, at least in the First Department, are not public proceedings, and it is my understanding that sealed records were unsealed for the purpose of this matter. However, again, that I believe was so that the parties would have opportunity to make their record here. I still maintain because it is a pending matter in the First Department, it should not be opened to the public. Once again, I am not stating in any way that counsel for either party should not be permitted to inquire. I understand the relevance of it. However, again, I do not believe that the inquiry into a matter which in and of itself was a closed proceeding, although revealed for purposes of this, and still pending should be a matter dealt with in open court. So, my request again is should counsel wish to inquire into the underlying aspects of an alcohol dependency and the disciplinary committee and the proceedings, that that be a matter that is not for public consideration. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim. Is there any other matter that you want to bring to the Court's attention before the witness is called? MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. In connection with my letter, which I know the Court has furnished to counsel, I informed the Court prior to today that on advice of counsel Ms. Conrad will be asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. She will be doing that once called into this courtroom. Obviously, if she is granted immunity, she will answer the questions as ordered. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sternheim. Does any other counsel wish to be heard further on the question of sealing of the courtroom? MR. GAIR: No, your Honor. MR. OKULA: No, your Honor. MR. ROTERT: No, your Honor. A VOICE: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: It's really not necessary. Have a seat. By letter dated February 8, 2012, Catherine Conrad requests that any questioning during this hearing concerning her medical suspension in proceedings held before the departmental disciplinary committee of the First Judicial Department be conducted in a closed courtroom. A party seeking to close the courtroom to the public must demonstrate "an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure." Presley v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct 721, 724 (2010) quoting Walker v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984). The information Ms. Conrad seeks to shield from public view has already been disseminated. But the various court filings in support of the defendants' motion for a new trial include, among other things, Conrad's disciplinary records and related court filings and her psychological evaluations. Given these prior disclosures, there is no overriding interest of Ms. Conrad that is likely to be prejudiced. Moreover, the rights of the defendants in this criminal case to a public proceeding trump Ms. Conrad's own parochial interest. Accordingly, her application is denied. I'd ask at this time that the marshals bring Ms. Conrad out. MR. OKULA: Your Honor, before they bring her out, may I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. OKULA: I have spoken with Mr. Gair, and we understand that the procedure is that Mr. Gair is going to call Ms. Conrad and that she is going to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Your Honor has before you an application that we have submitted requesting that she be compelled to testify and be given use immunity in connection with that testimony. I want to be perfectly clear that in connection with this hearing, although Mr. Gair is calling Ms. Conrad as a Page 99 Page 98 Page 100 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (25) Page 97 - Page 100 DOJ-OGR-00009238