DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg
468 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
468 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a lawyer, Ms. Brune, regarding her firm's knowledge of potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune asserts that the legal standard requires 'actual knowledge' of misconduct, which she claims her firm did not possess, though she admits they erroneously believed no misconduct occurred. The questioning also references a July 22nd telephone call where Ms. Brune apparently acknowledged her client, defendant Parse, was in a different situation compared to other defendants.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness/Lawyer |
Referred to as 'Ms. Brune', she is the person being questioned in this direct examination.
|
| McDonough |
Mentioned in the context of a legal standard: 'The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge.'
|
|
| Parse | Defendant |
Mentioned as 'defendant Parse', who Ms. Brune's firm represents.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed as the court reporting agency at the bottom of the document.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in reference to the 'New York ethical rule'.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge."Source
— Brune
(Stating the legal standard for juror misconduct that her side was operating under.)
DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg
Quote #1
"We did not have actual knowledge of juror misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears for certain, there was no juror misconduct."Source
— Brune
(Denying that she or her firm had actual knowledge of juror misconduct, which would have triggered a reporting obligation under her interpretation of the ethical standard.)
DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg
Quote #2
"You acknowledged in that July 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse, was differently situated than other defendants, correct?"Source
— Unnamed Questioner
(Questioning Ms. Brune about an admission made during a prior telephone call.)
DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,628 characters)
Case 2:20-cr-00338-DAE-Nm Document 1643-20 Filed 03/24/22 Page 278 of 3030
A-5757
A-5757
C2grdau2
Brune - direct
300
Brune - direct
300
1 It's a simple question.
2 A. The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge. We
3 didn't know. I don't think it is material to the legal
4 analysis. That having been said, I think if had we to do it
5 over again, the equivalent of the July 21st letter should have
6 been submitted alongside the brief. I missed the issue of what
7 the government's position was going to be.
8 Q. You're familiar, are you not, Ms. Brune, with the cases
9 subsequent to McDonough that have held that full knowledge is
10 not required, that defense counsel has an obligation to bring
11 potential misconduct to the Court's attention so that the court
12 can deal with it, correct?
13 A. I've certainly read a lot more of the waiver cases since
14 this whole issue has been joined. As an ethical matter,
15 though, the standard is if the lawyer has actual knowledge of
16 juror misconduct. We did not have actual knowledge of juror
17 misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears
18 for certain, there was no juror misconduct.
19 Q. I wasn't asking about the New York ethical rule that I
20 think you're referring to, Ms. Brune.
21 A. I'm sorry. If you asked me about an ethical matter, that's
22 my understanding.
23 Q. I'll withdraw the question. You acknowledged in that July
24 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse,
25 was differently situated than other defendants, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
2 A. The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge. We
3 didn't know. I don't think it is material to the legal
4 analysis. That having been said, I think if had we to do it
5 over again, the equivalent of the July 21st letter should have
6 been submitted alongside the brief. I missed the issue of what
7 the government's position was going to be.
8 Q. You're familiar, are you not, Ms. Brune, with the cases
9 subsequent to McDonough that have held that full knowledge is
10 not required, that defense counsel has an obligation to bring
11 potential misconduct to the Court's attention so that the court
12 can deal with it, correct?
13 A. I've certainly read a lot more of the waiver cases since
14 this whole issue has been joined. As an ethical matter,
15 though, the standard is if the lawyer has actual knowledge of
16 juror misconduct. We did not have actual knowledge of juror
17 misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears
18 for certain, there was no juror misconduct.
19 Q. I wasn't asking about the New York ethical rule that I
20 think you're referring to, Ms. Brune.
21 A. I'm sorry. If you asked me about an ethical matter, that's
22 my understanding.
23 Q. I'll withdraw the question. You acknowledged in that July
24 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse,
25 was differently situated than other defendants, correct?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010040
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document