DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
451 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
451 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning, led by the Court and involving attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, covers a fraud alert related to two Social Security numbers and the ethical obligations of the witness's firm. A key point of discussion is whether the firm would have voluntarily disclosed information from a July 21 letter about an investigation into Juror No. 7 without being prompted by the Court or the government.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
A witness being questioned during a recross-examination in court.
|
| MR. SCHECTMAN | Attorney |
An attorney who questions the witness, Brune.
|
| Ms. Davis | Attorney |
An attorney present at the hearing, addressed by the Court.
|
| Juror No. 7 | Juror |
The subject of an investigation mentioned in a letter from the witness's firm.
|
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 page.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Recross-examination of witness Brune regarding a fraud alert, Social Security numbers, and the disclosure of information about an investigation into Juror No. 7.
Courtroom
An investigation into Juror No. 7 conducted by the witness's (Brune's) firm.
Brune's firm
Juror No. 7
Relationships (3)
The Court, acting as the judge, directly questions the witness, Brune, during a legal proceeding.
Mr. Schectman, an attorney, concludes his questioning of the witness, Brune.
The Court addresses Ms. Davis, an attorney, to ask if she has further questions for the witness.
Key Quotes (2)
"I don't think we would have, your Honor. And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very seriously."Source
— THE WITNESS (Brune)
(Responding to the Court's question about whether their firm would have disclosed information about Juror No. 7 if the Court or government had not raised the issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
Quote #1
"But I don't think that we're obliged to identify arguments that the government might make in our opening brief."Source
— THE WITNESS (Brune)
(Explaining the firm's position on their legal obligations regarding disclosure and argumentation in legal briefs.)
DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,544 characters)
Case 2:20-cr-00083-BEN Document 1643-20 Filed 03/23/22 Page 896 of 13030
A-5774
A-5774
Brune - recross
317
317
1 C2GFDAU3
2 numbers?
3 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
4 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
5 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
6 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
7 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
8 name.
9 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
11 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
13 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
14 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 7 if the
15 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
16 waiver issue?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
18 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
19 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
20 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
21 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
22 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
23 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
24 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
25 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
26 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
2 numbers?
3 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
4 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
5 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
6 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
7 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
8 name.
9 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
11 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
13 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
14 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 7 if the
15 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
16 waiver issue?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
18 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
19 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
20 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
21 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
22 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
23 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
24 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
25 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
26 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010057
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document