DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg

965 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

5
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 965 KB
Summary

This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Trzaskoma Lawyer
A lawyer at Brune & Richard who discovered a potential identity match between Juror Conrad and a suspended lawyer.
Juror Conrad Juror
A juror who shares the same name as a suspended Bronx lawyer, prompting an investigation by the legal team.
Brune Lawyer
A lawyer at Brune & Richard who was informed of Trzaskoma's discovery and was involved in the decision not to report ...
Richard Lawyer
Mentioned as part of the law firm name, Brune & Richard.
Edelstein Co-counsel
A lawyer with whom Trzaskoma and Brune discussed the issue of Juror Conrad, concluding she was not the suspended lawyer.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Brune & Richard Law firm
The law firm representing a party in the case, whose lawyers investigated the identity of Juror Conrad.
Westlaw Company
A legal research service used by a paralegal to find a profile on the suspended lawyer.
The Court Government agency
The federal court where the trial was taking place.

Timeline (3 events)

March 2011
Trzaskoma discovered a 2010 court order suspending a Bronx lawyer with the same name as Juror Conrad. Lawyers at Brune & Richard decided the juror and lawyer were not the same person based on contradictory voir dire answers.
May 2011
Following a note from Juror Conrad, Trzaskoma and others at her firm re-examined the issue, finding suspension orders and a Westlaw profile. After an initial belief they were the same person, Trzaskoma concluded they were not, based on contradictions in their profiles.
Trzaskoma A paralegal
May 2011
Trzaskoma discussed the issue of Juror Conrad's identity with Brune and Edelstein. All three concluded that the juror was not the suspended lawyer and therefore did not need to present the information to the Court.

Locations (2)

Location Context
The location associated with the suspended lawyer who shared a name with Juror Conrad.
The address provided by Juror Conrad during voir dire, which contradicted the information known about the suspended l...

Relationships (3)

Trzaskoma Professional Brune
They are both lawyers at the firm Brune & Richard and collaborated on the decision regarding Juror Conrad.
Trzaskoma Professional Edelstein
They are described as co-counsel and discussed the issue of Juror Conrad's identity.
Brune Business Richard
They are the named partners of the law firm Brune & Richard.

Key Quotes (3)

"clear and convincing"
Source
— The document, referencing legal tests from a case named 'Doe' (Describing a standard of evidence that the lawyers did not possess regarding the juror's identity.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #1
"strongly suspected"
Source
— The document, referencing legal tests from a case named 'Doe' (Describing a standard of suspicion that the lawyers did not meet regarding the juror's identity.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #2
"Jesus, I do think it’s her,"
Source
— Trzaskoma (Written in an email after seeing selected information from a Westlaw profile, but before reviewing the entire profile and changing her mind.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document