DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
426 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
5
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
426 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
Being questioned under direct examination.
|
| MR. SCHECTMAN | Attorney |
Attorney present in court, asks for a date and later objects to a question.
|
| Judge | Judge |
Presiding over the court proceedings, addressed by the attorneys.
|
| Ms. Edelstein |
Subject of a question regarding whether she asked to see a suspension opinion.
|
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as having told Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th.
|
|
| Mr. Schoeman |
Recipient of information from Ms. Trzaskoma about a suspension issue.
|
|
| Mr. Berke |
Recipient of information from Ms. Trzaskoma about a suspension issue.
|
|
| MS. DAVIS | Attorney |
Attorney present in court, responds to an objection by citing rule 611(c).
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Clarifies the nature of Mr. Schectman's objection.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page as the court reporting service.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Direct examination of witness Brune by an unnamed questioner, with objections from Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, and clarification from the Court.
Courtroom
Unknown year-05-12
Ms. Trzaskoma allegedly informed Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue.
Unknown
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of a conversation being discussed in the testimony.
|
Relationships (5)
Both are acting as attorneys in the same court proceeding, on opposing sides of an objection.
Mr. Schectman addresses the Court as 'Judge' and makes a legal objection, which the Court rules on.
Ms. Davis addresses the Court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument.
Ms. Trzaskoma is alleged to have communicated with Mr. Schoeman about a 'suspension issue'.
Ms. Trzaskoma is alleged to have communicated with Mr. Berke about a 'suspension issue'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Judge, it would be helpful if we had a date."Source
— MR. SCHECTMAN
(Requesting a specific date for the conversation being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge, I object. I don't think the date is accurate. I think it's leading. I mean, I don't object to much leading, but the date's not accurate."Source
— MR. SCHECTMAN
(Objecting to a question posed to the witness based on an allegedly inaccurate date and its leading nature.)
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
Quote #2
"Your Honor if I might, 611(c) allows us to lead with a witness identified as an adverse party."Source
— MS. DAVIS
(Responding to Mr. Schectman's objection by citing a legal rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
Quote #3
"He's not objecting to leading. He's objecting to leading with an erroneous assumption or statement."Source
— THE COURT
(Clarifying the basis of Mr. Schectman's objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document