court transcript: A-5813
The court questions a witness about their law firm's disclosure practices and their consideration of raising an issue regarding Juror No. 1 during jury deliberations. The witness testifies that they didn't think there was a waiver issue and didn't consider raising the issue during juror replacement. The court and an attorney, MR. OKULA, engage in a discussion about further inquiries.
Summary
The court questions a witness about their law firm's disclosure practices and their consideration of raising an issue regarding Juror No. 1 during jury deliberations. The witness testifies that they didn't think there was a waiver issue and didn't consider raising the issue during juror replacement. The court and an attorney, MR. OKULA, engage in a discussion about further inquiries.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: 1:20-cv-00330-PAE
Ms. Brune testifies about a brief she wrote, admitting it missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of an investigation. She also acknowledges that her colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was aware of the investigation but it was not accurately reflected in the brief.
court transcript: A-5778
The transcript captures the testimony of Ms. Brune and the government's response to her speculation about their knowledge and actions. The government attorney, MR. OKULA, clarifies that they did not conduct an independent investigation after receiving a note and were unaware of certain information until the defendants filed a motion.
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-00330-PAE Document 61102/20
Ms. Edelstein is cross-examined about a conversation with colleagues regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. She explains that they didn't bring it to the court's attention because they deemed it inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer. There was no discussion about raising a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion until after receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 613 of 130
The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about her knowledge of Ms. Trzaskoma's potential attorney suspension and the actions taken by her team during the eight-day jury deliberation period.
deposition: A-5819
Schoeman testifies about a conversation with Trzaskoma that occurred during jury deliberations, after a juror's note was received. He clarifies the timing and details of the conversation and follow-up questions he asked.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.