DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
477 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
477 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as the author of an affidavit containing evidence.
|
|
| Theresa Trzskoma |
Mentioned as someone who investigated Juror No. 1 after having doubts.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
The subject of a subsequent investigation and a note, and central to the defense counsel's alleged strategic decision.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
The person being addressed by the speaker in court.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Second Circuit | Court |
Cited as having made clear rulings against the type of legal strategy allegedly used by the defense counsel.
|
| Brune & Richard law firm | Law Firm |
Mentioned as having a "suspension opinion" prior to voir dire which the defense counsel knew about but did not disclose.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| The Court | Government Agency |
Referred to as the judicial body that the defense counsel failed to inform about the suspension opinion.
|
| The Government | Government Agency |
Mentioned as one of the parties involved in airing issues during jury selection.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A hearing where documentary evidence and an affidavit from Susan Brune were adduced.
Court
The jury selection process, prior to which the defense counsel allegedly knew about the suspension opinion but chose not to disclose it.
Court
defense counsel
the government
the Court
A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted after Theresa Trzskoma developed doubts.
Relationships (2)
The document states that Theresa Trzskoma engaged in a "subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1" after having doubts.
The defense counsel was aware of a "suspension opinion" related to the Brune & Richard law firm before the trial's voir dire.
Key Quotes (1)
"The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other circuits, that 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 an attorney)
(The speaker is making a legal argument to the judge ('Your Honor') that the defense counsel's actions constituted an impermissible legal strategy.)
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,599 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 76 of 117
A-5919
A-5919
17
CAC3PARC
they had. Your Honor, that in our view ends the inquiry
completely. That finding alone is sufficient to defeat a
finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other
circuits, that you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage
in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your
trial conduct. We know that based on the documentary evidence
and the evidence that was adduced at the hearing as well as the
evidence that was put forth in the affidavit of Susan Brune,
that the Brune & Richard law firm had the suspension opinion
prior to voir dire, and chose not bring it to this Court's
attention. As we all know engaged in subsequent investigation
regarding Juror No. 1, when Theresa Trzskoma started to have
certain doubts about her after the receipt of Juror No. 1's
note.
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. In fact,
we know that prior to voir dire, they discussed the suspension
opinion, they chose not to bring it to the Court's attention.
Instead relying simply on the voir dire answers, even though as
this Court pointed out, far more trivial issues were aired by
all of the parties, by the government and indeed by the Court,
in terms of trying to figure out who would be good jurors.
They chose not to bring that to the Court's attention then
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
they had. Your Honor, that in our view ends the inquiry
completely. That finding alone is sufficient to defeat a
finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other
circuits, that you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage
in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your
trial conduct. We know that based on the documentary evidence
and the evidence that was adduced at the hearing as well as the
evidence that was put forth in the affidavit of Susan Brune,
that the Brune & Richard law firm had the suspension opinion
prior to voir dire, and chose not bring it to this Court's
attention. As we all know engaged in subsequent investigation
regarding Juror No. 1, when Theresa Trzskoma started to have
certain doubts about her after the receipt of Juror No. 1's
note.
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. In fact,
we know that prior to voir dire, they discussed the suspension
opinion, they chose not to bring it to the Court's attention.
Instead relying simply on the voir dire answers, even though as
this Court pointed out, far more trivial issues were aired by
all of the parties, by the government and indeed by the Court,
in terms of trying to figure out who would be good jurors.
They chose not to bring that to the Court's attention then
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009495
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document