DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
444 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
444 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended New York attorney.' Berke denies being told specific details but recalls a conversation where it was noted that the juror had previously been a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Berke | Witness |
The person being cross-examined, referred to as 'A' in the transcript.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror who is the subject of the questioning, regarding a potential connection to an attorney and a past personal in...
|
| Catherine Conrad |
A name used in a hypothetical question by the questioner, regarding a written report about a personal injury or priva...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Brune firm | Law firm |
Mentioned in a hypothetical question from the questioner ('Q') regarding a written report.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Court reporting agency |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page, likely the agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the phrase 'suspended New York attorney'.
|
Relationships (1)
The cross-examination is centered on what Berke knew about a potential 'connection' between these two individuals.
Key Quotes (3)
"Did she tell you anything else that her firm had learned that gave rise to the belief by one of their attorneys that there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?"Source
— Questioner ('Q')
(Questioning Berke about what a female colleague had told them.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #1
"The only other thing that I recall is that when talking about the note, we both noted that we believed that Juror 1 had said she had been a plaintiff in a personal injury case, which might explain the respondeat superior."Source
— Berke ('A')
(Responding to a question about underlying facts, recalling a specific detail from a conversation.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #2
"If you had learned from somebody at the Brune firm that they had a written report showing somebody named Catherine Conrad had a personal injury or had a private lawsuit, would that be a piece of information that you would want to have had at the time in order to do your own analysis?"Source
— Questioner ('Q')
(Posing a hypothetical question to Berke.)
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,543 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 117
A-5829
A-5829
C2grdau4
Berke - cross
372
Berke - cross
372
1 learned about the juror or believed or the connection between
2 the juror?
3 A. No. I think I have told you the substance of what I recall
4 of that conversation.
5 Q. She didn't explain in any fashion why she thought it was
6 important to tell you at that period of time?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did she tell you anything else that her firm had learned
9 that gave rise to the belief by one of their attorneys that
10 there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended
11 New York attorney?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did she tell you any of the underlying facts?
14 A. No. The only other thing that I recall is that when
15 talking about the note, we both noted that we believed that
16 Juror 1 had said she had been a plaintiff in a personal injury
17 case, which might explain the respondeat superior. I can't say
18 for certain it was in that identical conversation, I believe it
19 was probably was, but I do remember talking about that as well.
20 Q. Let me ask you this. If you had learned from somebody at
21 the Brune firm that they had a written report showing somebody
22 named Catherine Conrad had a personal injury or had a private
23 lawsuit, would that be a piece of information that you would
24 want to have had at the time in order to do your own analysis?
25 A. Just to be clear, what I'm referring to, I believe the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
2 the juror?
3 A. No. I think I have told you the substance of what I recall
4 of that conversation.
5 Q. She didn't explain in any fashion why she thought it was
6 important to tell you at that period of time?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did she tell you anything else that her firm had learned
9 that gave rise to the belief by one of their attorneys that
10 there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended
11 New York attorney?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did she tell you any of the underlying facts?
14 A. No. The only other thing that I recall is that when
15 talking about the note, we both noted that we believed that
16 Juror 1 had said she had been a plaintiff in a personal injury
17 case, which might explain the respondeat superior. I can't say
18 for certain it was in that identical conversation, I believe it
19 was probably was, but I do remember talking about that as well.
20 Q. Let me ask you this. If you had learned from somebody at
21 the Brune firm that they had a written report showing somebody
22 named Catherine Conrad had a personal injury or had a private
23 lawsuit, would that be a piece of information that you would
24 want to have had at the time in order to do your own analysis?
25 A. Just to be clear, what I'm referring to, I believe the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009433
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document