deposition transcript: A-5727
The witness, Brune, is being questioned about the voir dire process in Judge Pauley's courtroom, specifically about the role of counsel in raising concerns and questions about potential jurors. The questioning highlights Ms. Trzaskoma's involvement in raising issues with potential jurors, including one who worked at Goldman Sachs. The document reveals the collaborative and transparent nature of the voir dire process in this case.
Summary
The witness, Brune, is being questioned about the voir dire process in Judge Pauley's courtroom, specifically about the role of counsel in raising concerns and questions about potential jurors. The questioning highlights Ms. Trzaskoma's involvement in raising issues with potential jurors, including one who worked at Goldman Sachs. The document reveals the collaborative and transparent nature of the voir dire process in this case.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: A-5738
Ms. Brune testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1's identity, stating that Ms. Trzaskoma expressed doubts but did not mention a Westlaw report. Ms. Brune concludes that Juror No. 1 is who she claimed to be.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 68 of 130
Ms. Brune testifies that she saw certain emails before filing a July 21st letter and had knowledge of the July 15th conference call transcript. She disagrees that Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court were incorrect.
Deposition transcript: A-5737
The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein about Juror No. 1, speculating that she might be a suspended lawyer due to similarities between her voir dire responses and the juror note. They discussed the juror's background, including a personal injury suit, and initially downplayed the significance of the juror note.
deposition transcript: A-5728
The transcript shows a witness, Brune, being questioned about the defense team's knowledge of a potentially suspended attorney serving on the jury and their decision not to bring it to the court's attention immediately. The team had information that could have clarified the issue but chose not to act on it at the time. The questioning suggests that this decision may have been significant to the case's outcome.
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.
deposition transcript: A-5753
The deposition of Ms. Brune discusses her knowledge of emails and a conference call with the Court on July 15th, as well as her subsequent actions and understanding of Ms. Trzaskoma's statements during the call. Ms. Brune clarifies the timing of when she saw certain emails and a transcript of the conference call relative to filing a July 21st letter. The testimony touches on whether Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court were accurate based on her knowledge at the time.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.