DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
447 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
447 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
The person being cross-examined in the transcript.
|
| Ms. Conrad |
The author of a letter received by Ms. Brune's firm, and the subject of a potential juror misconduct issue.
|
|
| Mr. Okula |
The recipient of Ms. Conrad's letter, mentioned in a question to Ms. Brune.
|
|
| jury consultant | Consultant |
Mentioned by Ms. Brune as someone who advised against having a recovering alcoholic on the jury.
|
| the judge | Judge |
Mentioned in the context of jurors being required to follow the judge's instructions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that produced the transcript.
|
| the Court | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a person defying the Court by lying on voir dire and not following instructions.
|
| the government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity to which Ms. Conrad's letter was posted.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (2)
Ms. Brune is being questioned about a letter written by Ms. Conrad and why her firm did not act on it to raise a juror misconduct issue.
Ms. Brune's firm received a letter addressed to Mr. Okula.
Key Quotes (2)
"I didn't think there had been juror misconduct."Source
— Brune
(Answering why her firm did not consider raising a juror misconduct issue after receiving Ms. Conrad's letter.)
DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
Quote #1
"If I had known that a person was prepared to defy the Court by lying on voir dire, I would never have had any confidence that the person would follow the Court's instructions."Source
— Brune
(Explaining her reasoning for not wanting a certain type of person on the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,572 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 82 of 130
A-5767
A-5767
C2grdau2
Brune - cross
310
1 would have been very distracting and would have not made her a
2 good juror. Second, I have a great deal of faith in our jury
3 consultant, and he told us that he did not think it was a good
4 idea to have a recovering alcoholic on the jury.
5 Third, the most important thing that any juror is
6 supposed to do is follow the judge's instructions. If I had
7 known that a person was prepared to defy the Court by lying on
8 voir dire, I would never have had any confidence that the
9 person would follow the Court's instructions. So there's no
10 way that I wanted this person, if indeed she was a suspended
11 lawyer, to sit on this jury.
12 Q. Ms. Brune, would I be correct that your firm received Ms.
13 Conrad's letter to Mr. Okula approximately June 20th of 2011?
14 A. That's right. It was about three weeks after it was posted
15 to the government.
16 Q. At any time between the verdict in this case on May 24th
17 and the receipt of Ms. Conrad's letter on June 20th, had your
18 firm given any consideration to raising a juror misconduct
19 issue relating to Ms. Conrad as a basis for post-trial motions?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. I didn't think there had been juror misconduct.
23 Q. At any time during that same period did your firm give any
24 consideration to raising a juror misconduct issue as to Ms.
25 Conrad as an appellate issue?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Brune - cross
310
1 would have been very distracting and would have not made her a
2 good juror. Second, I have a great deal of faith in our jury
3 consultant, and he told us that he did not think it was a good
4 idea to have a recovering alcoholic on the jury.
5 Third, the most important thing that any juror is
6 supposed to do is follow the judge's instructions. If I had
7 known that a person was prepared to defy the Court by lying on
8 voir dire, I would never have had any confidence that the
9 person would follow the Court's instructions. So there's no
10 way that I wanted this person, if indeed she was a suspended
11 lawyer, to sit on this jury.
12 Q. Ms. Brune, would I be correct that your firm received Ms.
13 Conrad's letter to Mr. Okula approximately June 20th of 2011?
14 A. That's right. It was about three weeks after it was posted
15 to the government.
16 Q. At any time between the verdict in this case on May 24th
17 and the receipt of Ms. Conrad's letter on June 20th, had your
18 firm given any consideration to raising a juror misconduct
19 issue relating to Ms. Conrad as a basis for post-trial motions?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. I didn't think there had been juror misconduct.
23 Q. At any time during that same period did your firm give any
24 consideration to raising a juror misconduct issue as to Ms.
25 Conrad as an appellate issue?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009371
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document