DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
965 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
965 KB
Summary
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Trzaskoma | Lawyer |
A lawyer at Brune & Richard who discovered a potential identity match between Juror Conrad and a suspended lawyer.
|
| Juror Conrad | Juror |
A juror who shares the same name as a suspended Bronx lawyer, prompting an investigation by the legal team.
|
| Brune | Lawyer |
A lawyer at Brune & Richard who was informed of Trzaskoma's discovery and was involved in the decision not to report ...
|
| Richard | Lawyer |
Mentioned as part of the law firm name, Brune & Richard.
|
| Edelstein | Co-counsel |
A lawyer with whom Trzaskoma and Brune discussed the issue of Juror Conrad, concluding she was not the suspended lawyer.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune & Richard | Law firm |
The law firm representing a party in the case, whose lawyers investigated the identity of Juror Conrad.
|
| Westlaw | Company |
A legal research service used by a paralegal to find a profile on the suspended lawyer.
|
| The Court | Government agency |
The federal court where the trial was taking place.
|
Timeline (3 events)
May 2011
Following a note from Juror Conrad, Trzaskoma and others at her firm re-examined the issue, finding suspension orders and a Westlaw profile. After an initial belief they were the same person, Trzaskoma concluded they were not, based on contradictions in their profiles.
Trzaskoma
A paralegal
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location associated with the suspended lawyer who shared a name with Juror Conrad.
|
|
|
The address provided by Juror Conrad during voir dire, which contradicted the information known about the suspended l...
|
Relationships (3)
They are both lawyers at the firm Brune & Richard and collaborated on the decision regarding Juror Conrad.
They are described as co-counsel and discussed the issue of Juror Conrad's identity.
Key Quotes (3)
"clear and convincing"Source
— The document, referencing legal tests from a case named 'Doe'
(Describing a standard of evidence that the lawyers did not possess regarding the juror's identity.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #1
"strongly suspected"Source
— The document, referencing legal tests from a case named 'Doe'
(Describing a standard of suspicion that the lawyers did not meet regarding the juror's identity.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #2
"Jesus, I do think it’s her,"Source
— Trzaskoma
(Written in an email after seeing selected information from a Westlaw profile, but before reviewing the entire profile and changing her mind.)
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,136 characters)
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 6 of 29
DISCUSSION
Events in March 2011
15. The Brune & Richard lawyers had no duty to reveal to the court Trzaskoma's discovery of a 2010 court order suspending a Bronx lawyer with the same name as juror Conrad. None of the lawyers had knowledge that the Bronx lawyer and juror Conrad were the same person. None even had “clear and convincing” evidence or “strongly suspected” – the objective and subjective tests Doe rejected – they were the same person. Trzaskoma and Brune (who was told of the discovery though not shown the suspension order that Trzaskoma discovered but did not print) resolved to await juror Conrad’s voir dire answers. Those answers, including juror Conrad’s Bronxville address, directly contradicted any identity between the juror and the lawyer. This was in fact compelling. If the sworn answers were true, the juror was not the lawyer. A contrary conclusion would require the lawyers to believe that a suspended lawyer would repeatedly perjure herself in federal court in order to sit on a jury.
Events in May 2011
16. Juror Conrad gave the Court a note asking if the jury was going to be instructed on vicarious liability and respondeat superior. The contents of the note led Trzaskoma, assisted by others at the firm, to take another look at the issue the next day. The 2010 suspension order and an earlier suspension order from 2007 were found. Both identified a Bronx lawyer. A paralegal discovered the Westlaw profile and forwarded it to Trzaskoma in an email that highlighted selected information. After seeing the selected information but before reviewing the entire profile, Trzaskoma wrote “Jesus, I do think it’s her,” but then, after reviewing the entire profile, changed her mind in light of the contradiction between the juror’s voir dire answers and the limited information about lawyer Conrad (different levels of education, different addresses, etc.). In addition, Trzaskoma did not believe that the given age of the Bronx lawyer agreed with the apparent age of juror Conrad.
17. Trzaskoma discussed the issue with Brune and Edelstein later in the day. All three concluded that juror Conrad was not the suspended lawyer. Co-counsel with whom the matter was thereafter informally discussed thought the question not worth pursuing. Because the Brune & Richard lawyers did not believe – let alone have actual knowledge – that the juror and the suspended lawyer were the same person, they did not present their information to the Court. At least five lawyers, based on what they had seen or been told, reached this conclusion.
18. At this time, as earlier, no Brune & Richard lawyer had actual knowledge that juror Conrad was lawyer Conrad. Actual knowledge is the mental state that creates the disclosure duty under New York Rules 3.3(b) and 3.5(d). There was no ethical duty to reveal a suspicion, even a strong suspicion.
19. Any notion that silence was intended to preserve undetected a basis for a new trial motion in the event of conviction is belied by the lawyers’ actions. There was no effort to seek a new
DOJ-OGR-00010131
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document