DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
444 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
444 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended New York attorney.' Berke denies being told specific details but recalls a conversation where it was noted that the juror had previously been a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Berke | Witness |
The person being cross-examined, referred to as 'A' in the transcript.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror who is the subject of the questioning, regarding a potential connection to an attorney and a past personal in...
|
| Catherine Conrad |
A name used in a hypothetical question by the questioner, regarding a written report about a personal injury or priva...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Brune firm | Law firm |
Mentioned in a hypothetical question from the questioner ('Q') regarding a written report.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Court reporting agency |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page, likely the agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the phrase 'suspended New York attorney'.
|
Relationships (1)
The cross-examination is centered on what Berke knew about a potential 'connection' between these two individuals.
Key Quotes (3)
"Did she tell you anything else that her firm had learned that gave rise to the belief by one of their attorneys that there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?"Source
— Questioner ('Q')
(Questioning Berke about what a female colleague had told them.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #1
"The only other thing that I recall is that when talking about the note, we both noted that we believed that Juror 1 had said she had been a plaintiff in a personal injury case, which might explain the respondeat superior."Source
— Berke ('A')
(Responding to a question about underlying facts, recalling a specific detail from a conversation.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #2
"If you had learned from somebody at the Brune firm that they had a written report showing somebody named Catherine Conrad had a personal injury or had a private lawsuit, would that be a piece of information that you would want to have had at the time in order to do your own analysis?"Source
— Questioner ('Q')
(Posing a hypothetical question to Berke.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document