Court Transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 85 of 130
The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a Westlaw report concerning a juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms that the report matches the juror's information provided to the firm before voir dire.
Summary
The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a Westlaw report concerning a juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms that the report matches the juror's information provided to the firm before voir dire.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (1)
Related Documents (6)
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03303
The deposition transcript discusses the authenticity of a juror's identity and the intent behind a court brief's wording. The witness explains that the brief's detail was necessary to establish the juror's identity and denies that the intent was to create a false impression. The questioning highlights a potential misinterpretation of the brief's content.
deposition transcript: A-5791
The deponent discusses their review of a Westlaw report and e-mail traffic, confirming a Bronxville address and a reference to Robert Conrad, Catherine Conrad's father. The deponent's firm had previously identified Robert Conrad. The testimony highlights the firm's awareness of Catherine Conrad's family information during their investigation.
deposition transcript: A-5721
The deposition transcript shows Brune being questioned about their actions during a trial, specifically regarding the discovery of information about a potential juror named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they did not immediately inform the court about the information and did not require anyone to explain its significance to them. The testimony highlights Brune's understanding of the potential significance of the information.
Deposition Transcript: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20
The witness is being questioned about their knowledge of certain facts and the drafting of a legal brief. They discuss their understanding of events and the reasoning behind the wording used in the brief. The testimony highlights potential discrepancies in interpretation and the context in which the brief was written.
deposition: A-5829
The witness discusses a conversation with someone from the Brune firm about Juror No. 1 and a potential connection to a suspended attorney. The witness didn't receive detailed information about the connection but recalls discussing Juror No. 1's possible involvement in a personal injury case. The witness is questioned about whether they would have wanted information about a written report on Juror No. 1's background.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03363-PAE
The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her team's research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, and whether she had her team conduct additional research before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team to do so, relying instead on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.