DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
464 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal transcript / court testimony
File Size:
464 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein. The testimony concerns the drafting of a legal brief and whether the legal team knowingly omitted information regarding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad prior to voir dire (jury selection). The witness explains their focus was on establishing identity rather than waiving rights regarding juror misconduct.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness / Speaker A |
Testifying regarding the drafting of a legal brief and knowledge of a juror's background.
|
| Ms. Brune | Attorney / Colleague |
Discussed legal strategy and the drafting of a brief with Edelstein.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Subject of discussion |
Described as a 'suspended lawyer'; relates to a voir dire/juror misconduct issue.
|
| Unknown Questioner (Q) | Interviewer / Attorney |
Questioning Edelstein about legal strategy and intent.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on case number 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell case) and reporter location.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
Quote #1
"I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that may be difficult for you to believe now..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
Quote #2
"We just were trying to actually establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a long time for me to believe that they were the same person."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,597 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-8 Filed 02/24/22 Page 122 of 130
A-5807
A-5807
350
C2GFDAU3 Edelstein
1 in hindsight with respect to this proceeding, but I can see
2 with hindsight now how it might be construed in the way you
3 have suggested. But at the time when we were writing it we
4 were describing what happened when we received the letter on
5 June 20th.
6 Q. Well, it was worded that way because you and Ms. Brune had
7 had a discussion previously about what you were going to omit
8 from this brief, right?
9 A. No. The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not
10 we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information
11 that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad.
12 Q. And you agreed --
13 A. We discussed it in the context of what was the standard for
14 waiver, what was the standard for juror misconduct cases, which
15 was actual knowledge. I was not focused, when we were writing
16 the brief, I was not focused on waiver. We didn't know they
17 were the same person. We just were trying to actually
18 establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a
19 long time for me to believe that they were the same person.
20 I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that
21 may be difficult for you to believe now when you're taking a
22 brief and looking at every sentence and trying to impart some
23 meaning to it or an impression that we were trying to create.
24 But that's not how we were writing it.
25 Q. Can you just answer the question that I asked? You just
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009411
C2GFDAU3 Edelstein
1 in hindsight with respect to this proceeding, but I can see
2 with hindsight now how it might be construed in the way you
3 have suggested. But at the time when we were writing it we
4 were describing what happened when we received the letter on
5 June 20th.
6 Q. Well, it was worded that way because you and Ms. Brune had
7 had a discussion previously about what you were going to omit
8 from this brief, right?
9 A. No. The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not
10 we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information
11 that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad.
12 Q. And you agreed --
13 A. We discussed it in the context of what was the standard for
14 waiver, what was the standard for juror misconduct cases, which
15 was actual knowledge. I was not focused, when we were writing
16 the brief, I was not focused on waiver. We didn't know they
17 were the same person. We just were trying to actually
18 establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a
19 long time for me to believe that they were the same person.
20 I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that
21 may be difficult for you to believe now when you're taking a
22 brief and looking at every sentence and trying to impart some
23 meaning to it or an impression that we were trying to create.
24 But that's not how we were writing it.
25 Q. Can you just answer the question that I asked? You just
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009411
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document