DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
481 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
481 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript where a lawyer argues against a finding of 'ineffective assistance of counsel'. The speaker contends that the defense counsel, the Brune & Richard law firm, knowingly withheld information about a juror's 'suspension opinion' before trial, engaging in a prohibited 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'. This strategic choice, rather than negligence, should defeat the claim of ineffective counsel, according to the argument presented.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as the author of an affidavit put forth as evidence.
|
|
| Theresa Trzskoma |
Mentioned as someone who investigated Juror No. 1 after having doubts.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Subject of an investigation by Theresa Trzskoma and author of a note that prompted doubts.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as having made clear that defense counsel cannot engage in a 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'.
|
| Brune & Richard law firm | company |
Identified as the law firm that had the 'suspension opinion' prior to voir dire and chose not to bring it to the Cour...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A hearing where documentary evidence and an affidavit from Susan Brune were adduced.
Court
The jury selection process during which the defense counsel knew about a 'suspension opinion' but chose not to raise it.
Court
defense counsel
government
Court
A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted by Theresa Trzskoma.
Relationships (2)
Theresa Trzskoma conducted an investigation regarding Juror No. 1.
Susan Brune's affidavit was put forth, and the Brune & Richard law firm is mentioned as the defense counsel, suggesting she is part of or associated with the firm.
Key Quotes (2)
"you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your trial conduct."Source
— Unnamed speaker (likely prosecutor)
(Citing the Second Circuit's precedent to argue against the defense's conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
Quote #1
"It's quite clear that this is not a case where the defense counsel had been given a piece of information and did nothing. That's quite, quite not what happened here."Source
— Unnamed speaker (likely prosecutor)
(Arguing that the defense counsel's inaction was a deliberate choice, not an oversight.)
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document