DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
440 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
440 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman, filed on February 24, 2012. The questioning centers on why Schoeman did not conduct a more thorough follow-up investigation into a concern raised by Ms. Trzaskoma about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended attorney.' Schoeman states that the basis for the concern was simply that they shared the same name, and the issue was dismissed after reviewing voir dire responses.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schoeman | Witness |
The individual being cross-examined, referred to as 'A' in the transcript.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
A person who believed there was a possible connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended attorney.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror who was thought to have a possible connection to a suspended attorney due to sharing the same name.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the document.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma where Trzaskoma mentioned a possible connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended attorney because they had the same name.
Relationships (2)
Schoeman was questioning Ms. Trzaskoma about her determination regarding a juror, suggesting an investigative or legal professional relationship.
The document discusses the possibility that Juror No. 1 and a suspended attorney were the same person because they shared the same name.
Key Quotes (3)
"Did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma what had led her to conclude or what led to her belief that there was a possible connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?"Source
— Questioner (Q)
(The questioner is probing the depth of Schoeman's investigation into the potential juror issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
Quote #1
"I think all she told me was that they had the same name, and I inferred that that was the basis of her considering it possible that they were the same person."Source
— Schoeman (A)
(Schoeman's response explaining the limited information received from Ms. Trzaskoma about the basis for her belief.)
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
Quote #2
"Is it correct that you didn't ask any other follow-up questions that led to her initial belief that there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?"Source
— Questioner (Q)
(The questioner is confirming that Schoeman did not pursue the origin of Ms. Trzaskoma's suspicion further.)
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,506 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00380-PAE Document 616-30 Filed 02/24/12 Page 53 of 117
A-5820
A-5820
C2grdau4
Schoeman - cross
363
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That's what any good lawyer or investigator does when
3 somebody tells them a broad fact; you ask what supports that,
4 correct?
5 A. It's the question I asked.
6 Q. Do you disagree with my proposition that a good
7 investigator or lawyer, when somebody gives them a broad
8 proposition, asks the follow-up question, what is that based
9 on?
10 A. I don't disagree with it.
11 Q. Did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma what had led her to conclude or
12 what led to her belief that there was a possible connection
13 between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?
14 A. I think she told me that there was someone with the same
15 name as Juror No. 1. I don't recall whether we actually used
16 the person's name. Then, as I described, I asked questions
17 about why she had determined it was not the same person, and
18 the answer was based on the voir dire responses.
19 Q. Is it correct that you didn't ask any other follow-up
20 questions that led to her initial belief that there was a
21 connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?
22 A. I think all she told me was that they had the same name,
23 and I inferred that that was the basis of her considering it
24 possible that they were the same person.
25 Q. Did she tell you that they had the same middle initials?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Schoeman - cross
363
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That's what any good lawyer or investigator does when
3 somebody tells them a broad fact; you ask what supports that,
4 correct?
5 A. It's the question I asked.
6 Q. Do you disagree with my proposition that a good
7 investigator or lawyer, when somebody gives them a broad
8 proposition, asks the follow-up question, what is that based
9 on?
10 A. I don't disagree with it.
11 Q. Did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma what had led her to conclude or
12 what led to her belief that there was a possible connection
13 between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?
14 A. I think she told me that there was someone with the same
15 name as Juror No. 1. I don't recall whether we actually used
16 the person's name. Then, as I described, I asked questions
17 about why she had determined it was not the same person, and
18 the answer was based on the voir dire responses.
19 Q. Is it correct that you didn't ask any other follow-up
20 questions that led to her initial belief that there was a
21 connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended attorney?
22 A. I think all she told me was that they had the same name,
23 and I inferred that that was the basis of her considering it
24 possible that they were the same person.
25 Q. Did she tell you that they had the same middle initials?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009424
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document