court transcript: A-5833
The transcript shows the redirect examination of witness Berke by Mr. Shechtman, discussing Berke's investigation into Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. Berke confirms he didn't investigate further after agreeing with Ms. Brune that Catherine Conrad couldn't be Juror No. 1 based on voir dire. The witness is then excused, and the defense indicates they have no additional witnesses to call.
Summary
The transcript shows the redirect examination of witness Berke by Mr. Shechtman, discussing Berke's investigation into Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. Berke confirms he didn't investigate further after agreeing with Ms. Brune that Catherine Conrad couldn't be Juror No. 1 based on voir dire. The witness is then excused, and the defense indicates they have no additional witnesses to call.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
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: A-5722
The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is questioned about her understanding of the significance of certain information regarding a potential juror and the steps she took or didn't take to verify this information. The questioning attorney presses Ms. Brune for her understanding and actions, with objections and comments from other attorneys and the court.
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: 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-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.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.