DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg

461 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

1
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court transcript
File Size: 461 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.

People (1)

Name Role Context
Stevens Justice
Mentioned in reference to 'Justice Stevens' dissent' which contains language about strategic judgment.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Brune firm Law firm
Discussed as having made a potential strategic judgment on May 12, 2011.
Second Circuit Court
Cited as having provided a definition distinguishing strategic judgment from oversight or carelessness.
Supreme Court Court
Cited for the principle that courts should not second-guess lawyers' strategic decisions.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. Company
Listed at the bottom of the page, indicating they are the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.

Timeline (2 events)

2011-05-12
A 'fateful' day on which the Brune firm is said to have made a strategic judgment, possibly during the voir dire process.
The voir dire process, during which the Brune firm may have made a strategic judgment.
Court

Locations (1)

Location Context
Mentioned in a hypothetical 'Plaza conversation' involving the Brune firm.

Key Quotes (2)

"If the Brune firm in that Plaza conversation said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,"
Source
— Unidentified speaker (CAC3PARC) (A hypothetical scenario presented to argue that a conscious decision to withhold information from a court constitutes a strategic decision, not mere negligence.)
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
Quote #1
"The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or carelessness or ineptitude."
Source
— Unidentified speaker (CAC3PARC) (Citing legal precedent to define what does not qualify as a strategic judgment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
Quote #2

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document