According to DOJ-released documents indexed by Epstein Exposed, MS. BRUNE appears in 9 case documents in the Epstein files.
Mentioned in 53 documents. Roles: witness being deposed, previous witness, Witness in the USA v. Maxwell trial, witness being questioned, Colleague who discussed the content of the brief with the witness
Large reports can take 10 to 30 seconds. Your download will start automatically.
MS. BRUNE is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
This dossier was generated by AI (Claude) from court filings, government releases, and other documentary sources in our database. It may contain errors or misattributions. Always verify claims against the linked source documents.
Background
Ms. Brune is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who served as defense counsel in the criminal case USA v. Maxwell (Case No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). She was a partner at her law firm and held supervisory responsibility over a legal team that included colleagues such as Ms. Trzaskoma (Theresa Trzaskoma) and Ms. Edelstein (Laura Edelstein). Her professional background includes prosecutorial experience, and she was extensively questioned about her understanding of ethical standards and prosecutorial/defense obligations during depositions and court proceedings related to the Maxwell case.
Epstein Connection
Ms. Brune was a member of the defense team in the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell (USA v. Maxwell, 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), which arose directly from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. She became a central witness in post-trial proceedings concerning the conduct of the defense team with respect to Juror No. 1 (Catherine M. Conrad), whose background raised questions about potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune was deposed and testified at length about her team's handling of information discovered about this juror during and after the trial.
Key Allegations(8)
Ms. Brune did not ask her team to conduct additional research on potential juror Catherine M. Conrad before voir dire, despite information linking her name to a New York court opinion, instead relying on the voir dire process to resolve the question.
documentedMs. Brune did not initially consider significant information about a juror to be important and did not immediately contact the court about it, despite having the resources and team to investigate further.
documentedMs. Brune wrote a brief that missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of an investigation. Her colleague Ms. Trzaskoma was aware of the investigation but this was not accurately reflected in the brief.
documentedMs. Brune acknowledged that the factual assertions in a court brief she signed were not accurate and complete, expressing regret over missing certain issues, particularly regarding a waiver and the government's potential inquiries.
documentedMs. Brune's brief omitted key facts, including a suspension opinion found by Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a juror with the same name as a suspended/disbarred lawyer.
documentedMs. Brune did not disclose information about Juror No. 1's potential identity as a suspended lawyer to the court in a timely manner, raising questions about her obligations as an officer of the court.
documentedMs. Brune could have asked Judge Pauley to pose specific questions to jurors during voir dire but chose not to.
documentedLegal Status
Ms. Brune was deposed and testified as a witness in proceedings related to USA v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically concerning post-trial issues regarding Juror No. 1 (Catherine M. Conrad) and the defense team's handling of information about this juror. She was not charged with any crime but was extensively questioned about potential ethical lapses.
Notable Statements(6)
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
Contradictions(5)
Ms. Brune disagreed that Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court were incorrect.
Ms. Brune separately admitted that the brief she wrote (which reflected Ms. Trzaskoma's knowledge) missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of the investigation, and that Ms. Trzaskoma was aware of the investigation but this was not accurately reflected in the brief.
Ms. Brune testified she did not consider the juror information significant enough to warrant further investigation or contact with the court.
Ms. Brune admitted she had the resources and team to investigate further, and the questioning revealed that the information concerned a potential juror who may have been a suspended/disbarred lawyer -- a matter of considerable legal significance, especially in a case where lawyers' misconduct was part of the indictment's allegations.
Ms. Brune relied on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion.
Ms. Brune acknowledged she could have asked Judge Pauley to ask specific questions to jurors during voir dire but chose not to, and did not ask her team to conduct additional research before voir dire.
Ms. Brune's brief was intended to establish that two individuals were the same person, not to convey specific meaning regarding waiver.
Ms. Brune testified about the potential misinterpretation of the brief due to its wording and acknowledged it omitted key facts including a suspension opinion found by Ms. Trzaskoma.
Ms. Brune's firm did not believe juror misconduct had occurred.
Ms. Trzaskoma had expressed doubts about Juror No. 1's identity and had found a Westlaw report regarding the juror, yet the firm did not bring this to the court's attention. Ms. Brune did not initially discuss the Google search with co-counsel.
Key Relationships(9)
Ms. Brune served as defense counsel in the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell (USA v. Maxwell). Her deposition focused on her involvement in the case and interactions with other lawyers. [d-576, d-6645]
Ms. Trzaskoma was a colleague on Ms. Brune's defense team. Trzaskoma found a Westlaw report and suspension opinion about a juror, expressed doubts about Juror No. 1's identity, and was involved in the jury selection process. Ms. Brune acknowledged Trzaskoma's knowledge was not accurately reflected in the brief. [d-626, d-585, d-8336, d-8338, d-6654]
Ms. Edelstein (Laura Edelstein) was a colleague who discussed the content of the brief with Ms. Brune, including the omission of certain information. Edelstein later testified separately about the firm's handling of Juror No. 1 information. [d-8405, d-6620, d-7902, d-6696]
Susan Elizabeth Brune co-occurs in 8 shared documents, suggesting Ms. Brune may be the same individual or closely related professionally. [d-576, d-6645]
Mr. Okula was the government prosecutor who conducted redirect examination of Ms. Brune and clarified that the government did not conduct an independent investigation after receiving a note. [d-580, d-6649, d-8376]
Ms. Conrad (Catherine M. Conrad) was Juror No. 1 in the Maxwell trial. Ms. Brune's team researched Conrad's background and later received a letter from Conrad that prompted post-trial proceedings. [d-661, d-8365, d-6730]
Catherine Morgan Conrad was the full name of the juror whose identity and background were the central focus of Ms. Brune's deposition testimony. [d-661, d-6730]
Judge Pauley presided over proceedings in which Ms. Brune participated in jury selection. Ms. Brune acknowledged she could have asked Judge Pauley to pose specific questions to jurors. [d-8321]
Mr. Shiechtman (also spelled Shechtman) was an attorney involved in the proceedings, conducting redirect examination of witnesses including Mr. Berke. [d-8428]
Timeline(14 events)
Ms. Brune's team used a jury consultant and participated in jury selection for the Maxwell trial, including consideration of juror availability and criminal backgrounds. Discussion with Dennis Donahue occurred prior to jury selection.
During voir dire, Ms. Brune handled juror information and chose not to ask Judge Pauley to pose specific questions to potential jurors, including about Catherine M. Conrad's background.
Ms. Brune did not ask her team to conduct additional research on potential juror Catherine M. Conrad before voir dire, relying instead on the voir dire process.
Ms. Trzaskoma found a Westlaw report and suspension opinion regarding a person with the same name as Juror No. 1 and expressed doubts to Ms. Brune about the juror's identity. Ms. Brune concluded Juror No. 1 was who she claimed to be.
Ms. Brune had a brief conversation with Mr. Berke regarding a person with the same name as a disbarred lawyer. They discussed the person's educational background and concluded it was likely not the same person.
Eight-day jury deliberation period during which Ms. Brune's team took certain actions, including regarding Ms. Trzaskoma's potential attorney suspension issue.
Ms. Brune received a jury note that upset her. She verified information on the Bar website.
Ms. Brune received a copy of Ms. Conrad's letter to Mr. Okula and had conversations with defense counsel and co-counsel as joint defense communications.
A conference call with the Court took place on July 15th. Ms. Trzaskoma made statements during this call that Ms. Brune later defended as not incorrect.
Ms. Brune filed a July 21st letter after seeing certain emails and the July 15th conference call transcript.
Ms. Brune wrote and signed a legal brief that omitted key facts including the suspension opinion found by Ms. Trzaskoma, and did not accurately represent the investigation timeline. Her partner reviewed the final brief.
Court filings documenting Ms. Brune's deposition testimony and related proceedings were filed with the court.
Ms. Brune testified in redirect examination about her ethical obligations as a defense attorney, stating she would have disclosed underlying facts even if not raised by the government.
The government, through Mr. Okula, clarified during redirect examination of Ms. Brune that they did not conduct an independent investigation after receiving a note and were unaware of certain information until defendants filed a motion.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
9 sources for document mentions
The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant...
“The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant”
Ms. Brune testifies that she saw certain emails before filing a July 21st letter and had knowledge o...
“Ms. Brune testifies that she saw certain emails before filing a July 21st letter and had knowledge o”
The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is being questioned about her knowledge...
“The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is being questioned about her knowledge”
The document is a court transcript of a redirect examination of witness Ms. Brune. Prosecutor MR. OK...
“The document is a court transcript of a redirect examination of witness Ms. Brune. Prosecutor MR. OK”
The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she discusses her convers...
“The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she discusses her convers”
External Cross-Check
Search ICIJ Offshore Leaks, OFAC Sanctions, SEC EDGAR, and Federal Courts
Document Mentions
This dossier on MS. BRUNE was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.