DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
461 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
461 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Stevens | Justice |
Mentioned in reference to 'Justice Stevens' dissent' which contains language about strategic judgment.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune firm | Law firm |
Discussed as having made a potential strategic judgment on May 12, 2011.
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Cited as having provided a definition distinguishing strategic judgment from oversight or carelessness.
|
| Supreme Court | Court |
Cited for the principle that courts should not second-guess lawyers' strategic decisions.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, indicating they are the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2011-05-12
A 'fateful' day on which the Brune firm is said to have made a strategic judgment, possibly during the voir dire process.
The voir dire process, during which the Brune firm may have made a strategic judgment.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a hypothetical 'Plaza conversation' involving the Brune firm.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"If the Brune firm in that Plaza conversation said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,"Source
— Unidentified speaker (CAC3PARC)
(A hypothetical scenario presented to argue that a conscious decision to withhold information from a court constitutes a strategic decision, not mere negligence.)
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
Quote #1
"The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or carelessness or ineptitude."Source
— Unidentified speaker (CAC3PARC)
(Citing legal precedent to define what does not qualify as a strategic judgment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,557 characters)
Case 2:20-cv-00338-DAE-NJK Document 164-3-20 Filed 03/23/22 Page 62 of 117
A-5905
A-5905
3
CAC3PARC
1 have that discussion.
2 The first question obviously is was the performance
3 deficient here. And that I think turns on the question of did
4 the Brune firm make a strategic judgment on that fateful
5 May 12, 2011 day, maybe even earlier during the voir dire
6 itself. And I'm not sure there is a great definition of
7 strategic judgment, but there is very good language in Justice
8 Stevens' dissent, but I don't think the majority disagreed with
9 it, that talks about a conscious choice between two
10 alternatives borne of deliberation not happenstance,
11 inattention or neglect.
12 The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a
13 strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or
14 carelessness or ineptitude.
15 I like to think about this as strategic judgments are
16 situations where lawyers say, one of two courses could have
17 answered my client's interests. I choose A after some thought.
18 It may be that B is the wiser course. But we'd retry a lot of
19 cases if we second guess lawyers in that situation and
20 obviously the Supreme Court says we shouldn't.
21 I say in our papers that if what went on here was one
22 of two things. If the Brune firm in that Plaza conversation
23 said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go
24 forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at
25 the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 have that discussion.
2 The first question obviously is was the performance
3 deficient here. And that I think turns on the question of did
4 the Brune firm make a strategic judgment on that fateful
5 May 12, 2011 day, maybe even earlier during the voir dire
6 itself. And I'm not sure there is a great definition of
7 strategic judgment, but there is very good language in Justice
8 Stevens' dissent, but I don't think the majority disagreed with
9 it, that talks about a conscious choice between two
10 alternatives borne of deliberation not happenstance,
11 inattention or neglect.
12 The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a
13 strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or
14 carelessness or ineptitude.
15 I like to think about this as strategic judgments are
16 situations where lawyers say, one of two courses could have
17 answered my client's interests. I choose A after some thought.
18 It may be that B is the wiser course. But we'd retry a lot of
19 cases if we second guess lawyers in that situation and
20 obviously the Supreme Court says we shouldn't.
21 I say in our papers that if what went on here was one
22 of two things. If the Brune firm in that Plaza conversation
23 said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go
24 forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at
25 the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010160
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document