DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg
436 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
436 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations, specifically regarding information she discussed with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, 2011, concerning Juror No. 1. The discussion revolved around a note the juror had sent about legal terms and whether that juror was a lawyer Trzaskoma had previously found via a Google search.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | officer of this court |
The individual being questioned (testifying) in a court proceeding.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma |
A person with whom Ms. Brune had a discussion on May 12 regarding a juror and a note.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
The subject of significant information received by Ms. Brune on May 12, 2011.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that produced the document.
|
| company |
Mentioned as the tool used for a search ("Google search") that located a lawyer.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2011-05-12
Ms. Brune had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma about a juror's note and identity.
Relationships (1)
The document states they had a discussion on May 12, 2011, about a juror and a note related to the trial, indicating a professional or collegial relationship.
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
(Responding to a question about her obligation to promptly disclose information suggesting juror misconduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg
Quote #1
"On May 12 I had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma in which she described her sort of wondering whether the juror who had sent that note referring to respondeat superior and vicarious liability was the lawyer whom she'd earlier located by a Google search."Source
— Brune
(Describing a conversation she had on May 12, 2011, in response to a question about receiving information related to Juror No. 1.)
DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,398 characters)
Case 2:20-cv-00838-DAE-N Dccument164-2-20 Filed 03/23/22 Page 237 of 3030
A-5717
A-5717
C2GFDAU1
260
Brune - direct
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
260
Brune - direct
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-00010000
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document