DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
451 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
451 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief, revealing that it omitted key information about a 'suspension opinion' and contained inaccuracies regarding the catalyst for an investigation, which was allegedly a letter from a Ms. Conrad. The transcript suggests that another individual, Ms. Trzaskoma, was responsible for drafting the facts in the brief.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
A witness being questioned under direct examination about a brief.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as the person who found a 'suspension opinion' and drafted the initial facts for a brief.
|
|
| MR. SHECHTMAN | Judge |
Interjects to state that the suspension opinion is mentioned in the brief.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, overrules an objection.
|
| Ms. Conrad |
Mentioned as the author of a letter that prompted an investigation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-03-24
Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding the contents and accuracy of a legal brief.
Southern District Court (implied)
An investigation that was described in a legal brief. The witness claims it was not launched until after the government disclosed a letter from Ms. Conrad.
Brune's party
An investigation that Ms. Trzaskoma asked to be done on May 12th.
Relationships (2)
The document shows an adversarial questioning relationship typical of a court proceeding, where the questioner is challenging the witness's (Brune's) previous statements and actions.
They appear to be colleagues. Brune is being questioned about a brief for which Ms. Trzaskoma drafted the facts.
Key Quotes (3)
"You are right that the brief does not include a discussion of our having accessed the suspension opinion during the trial."Source
— Brune
(Admitting an omission in the brief during questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #1
"You claim in that brief that it was the letter of Ms. Conrad that prompted you to investigate. That was simply not accurate, correct?"Source
— Questioner
(Challenging the accuracy of the brief regarding the reason for an investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #2
"Ms. Trzaskoma drafted in the first instance the set of facts for that brief, correct?"Source
— Questioner
(Establishing who was responsible for drafting the facts section of the brief in question.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,492 characters)
Case 2:20-cr-00083-DAE-N Document 1643-20 Filed 03/24/22 Page 656 of 3030
A-5750
A-5750
C2grdau2
Brune - direct
293
1 prominence it has here. I missed the issue, and I really
2 regret that. It was, I think, a good brief, but it missed it.
3 Q. Do you think good briefs omit material facts, Ms. Brune?
4 A. I certainly do not think that about briefs.
5 Q. You knew when you wrote that brief about the suspension
6 opinion that Ms. Trzaskoma had found, correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. There is no mention of that in the brief, correct?
9 MR. SHECHTMAN: Judge, there is mention of the
10 suspension opinion in the brief.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 A. You are right that the brief does not include a discussion
13 of our having accessed the suspension opinion during the trial.
14 Q. In fact, it's worse than that, Ms. Brune. You claim in
15 that brief that it was the letter of Ms. Conrad that prompted
16 you to investigate. That was simply not accurate, correct?
17 A. I think it was accurate in that we did not launch an
18 investigation of the sort that was described in the brief until
19 after the government disclosed the letter. But as I've said, I
20 missed that issue in terms of how the brief was written.
21 Q. Ms. Trzaskoma drafted in the first instance the set of
22 facts for that brief, correct?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. She was well aware of the investigation that she asked be
25 done on May 12th, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Brune - direct
293
1 prominence it has here. I missed the issue, and I really
2 regret that. It was, I think, a good brief, but it missed it.
3 Q. Do you think good briefs omit material facts, Ms. Brune?
4 A. I certainly do not think that about briefs.
5 Q. You knew when you wrote that brief about the suspension
6 opinion that Ms. Trzaskoma had found, correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. There is no mention of that in the brief, correct?
9 MR. SHECHTMAN: Judge, there is mention of the
10 suspension opinion in the brief.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 A. You are right that the brief does not include a discussion
13 of our having accessed the suspension opinion during the trial.
14 Q. In fact, it's worse than that, Ms. Brune. You claim in
15 that brief that it was the letter of Ms. Conrad that prompted
16 you to investigate. That was simply not accurate, correct?
17 A. I think it was accurate in that we did not launch an
18 investigation of the sort that was described in the brief until
19 after the government disclosed the letter. But as I've said, I
20 missed that issue in terms of how the brief was written.
21 Q. Ms. Trzaskoma drafted in the first instance the set of
22 facts for that brief, correct?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. She was well aware of the investigation that she asked be
25 done on May 12th, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010033
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document