DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg

429 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 429 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.

People (7)

Name Role Context
Mr. Schectman Witness/Lawyer
Being addressed by the Court and answering questions during cross-examination.
Ms. Edelstein Lawyer
Conducting the cross-examination of Mr. Schectman.
Ms. Brune
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Mr. Schectman and Ms. Trzaskoma.
Ms. Trzaskoma
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Mr. Schectman and Ms. Brune.
Juror No. 1 Juror
A juror who shares the same name as a suspended lawyer.
Catherine Conrad Suspended lawyer
A suspended lawyer whose name was the same as Juror No. 1. Also mentioned as the author of a post-trial letter.
your Honor Judge
Addressed by Mr. Schectman.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. company
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
Brune firm company
Mentioned in a question regarding discussions about raising a juror misconduct issue.

Timeline (3 events)

YYYY-05-12
A conversation took place regarding a suspended lawyer having the same name as a juror.
the plaza
YYYY-05-24
The juror's verdict was delivered.
Court
YYYY-06-30
Receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter.
Ms. Conrad

Locations (1)

Location Context
The location of a conversation on May 12th between Mr. Schectman, Ms. Brune, and Ms. Trzaskoma.

Relationships (3)

Ms. Edelstein professional Mr. Schectman
Ms. Edelstein is conducting a cross-examination of Mr. Schectman in a court proceeding, indicating an adversarial legal relationship.
Mr. Schectman professional Ms. Brune
They had a conversation on the plaza together with Ms. Trzaskoma, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.
Mr. Schectman professional Ms. Trzaskoma
They had a conversation on the plaza together with Ms. Brune, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.

Key Quotes (3)

"on May 12th at the end of the conversation that you had on the plaza with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, why didn't you bring information about there being a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1, why didn't you bring that to the Court's attention?"
Source
— Ms. Edelstein (A question during cross-examination to Mr. Schectman.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
Quote #1
"At some point during the conversation we had discussed whether we should bring it to the Court's attention, but after we discussed the issue and concluded that it was inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer, we didn't see a reason to bring the fact that there was a suspended lawyer with the name Catherine Conrad to the Court's attention..."
Source
— Mr. Schectman (Answering why he did not inform the court about the suspended lawyer.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
Quote #2
"At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper with the record?"
Source
— Ms. Edelstein (A question during cross-examination to Mr. Schectman.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.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