deposition: A-5802
The deponent discusses the process of verifying a juror's identity and the intent behind the wording of a legal brief. They acknowledge that the brief may be read in different ways, potentially conveying a false impression. The questioning focuses on whether the brief accurately represents when they learned of the juror's suspension.
Summary
The deponent discusses the process of verifying a juror's identity and the intent behind the wording of a legal brief. They acknowledge that the brief may be read in different ways, potentially conveying a false impression. The questioning focuses on whether the brief accurately represents when they learned of the juror's suspension.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Related Documents (6)
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-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-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: 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-5766
The transcript captures the cross-examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about the firm's decision-making process during jury selection, specifically regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, and whether she was believed to be a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they did not believe Catherine Conrad was a suspended lawyer based on her responses during voir dire.
deposition transcript: 1616620
The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant, conversations about a juror's identity, and the team's response to new information about the juror. The testimony reveals details about the team's actions and potential inconsistencies in their statements.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.