DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg
432 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
432 KB
Summary
This court transcript excerpt details the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, who is an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations regarding juror misconduct and a specific conversation on May 12, 2011, with Theresa Trzaskoma. The conversation concerned whether a juror who sent a note with legal terms was a lawyer previously identified through a Google search.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness / Officer of the court |
The individual being questioned under direct examination.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma |
A person with whom Ms. Brune had a discussion about a juror on May 12, 2011.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
The subject of information discussed between Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the entity to which Ms. Brune has ethical obligations.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2011-05-12
A discussion between Ms. Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma about information potentially related to Juror No. 1.
Relationships (1)
The document states they had a discussion on May 12, 2011, about a juror and a note sent during a trial, indicating they were colleagues involved in the same legal matter.
Key Quotes (2)
"I don't agree with your characterization. I had an ethical obligation to bring whatever material that I thought was accurate to the Court and that's what I tried to do throughout the trial."Source
— Brune
(In response to a question about her obligation to promptly disclose information suggesting juror misconduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't think that I received significant information, but I did have a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma about the note, which was at that point new to us."Source
— Brune
(Responding to a question about receiving significant information related to Juror No. 1 on May 12, 2011.)
DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,393 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 32 of 130
A-5717
A-5717
C2GFDAU1
Brune - direct
260
1 from voir dire all the way through the verdict, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, Ms. Brune, you are an officer of this court, correct?
4 A. I am.
5 Q. And as an officer of the court you have ethical
6 obligations, correct?
7 A. I do indeed.
8 Q. And you have an obligation to be truthful to the Court?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you have an obligation to promptly disclose to the
11 court any information that you might have suggesting juror
12 misconduct, correct?
13 A. I don't agree with your characterization. I had an ethical
14 obligation to bring whatever material that I thought was
15 accurate to the Court and that's what I tried to do throughout
16 the trial.
17 Q. On May 12, 2011, you received information, significant
18 information that related potentially to Juror No. 1, correct?
19 A. On May 12 I had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma in
20 which she described her sort of wondering whether the juror who
21 had sent that note referring to respondeat superior and
22 vicarious liability was the lawyer whom she'd earlier located
23 by a Google search. I don't think that I received significant
24 information, but I did have a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma
25 about the note, which was at that point new to us.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Brune - direct
260
1 from voir dire all the way through the verdict, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, Ms. Brune, you are an officer of this court, correct?
4 A. I am.
5 Q. And as an officer of the court you have ethical
6 obligations, correct?
7 A. I do indeed.
8 Q. And you have an obligation to be truthful to the Court?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you have an obligation to promptly disclose to the
11 court any information that you might have suggesting juror
12 misconduct, correct?
13 A. I don't agree with your characterization. I had an ethical
14 obligation to bring whatever material that I thought was
15 accurate to the Court and that's what I tried to do throughout
16 the trial.
17 Q. On May 12, 2011, you received information, significant
18 information that related potentially to Juror No. 1, correct?
19 A. On May 12 I had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma in
20 which she described her sort of wondering whether the juror who
21 had sent that note referring to respondeat superior and
22 vicarious liability was the lawyer whom she'd earlier located
23 by a Google search. I don't think that I received significant
24 information, but I did have a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma
25 about the note, which was at that point new to us.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009321
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document