DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
448 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
448 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about Juror No. 1, specifically concerning a potential connection to a suspended New York attorney and the juror's past involvement as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Berke denies being told details about the alleged connection but recalls discussing the juror's prior lawsuit.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Berke | Witness |
The individual being cross-examined in the transcript.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror whose potential connection to a suspended attorney and past personal injury lawsuit is the subject of questio...
|
| Catherine Conrad |
A name used in a hypothetical question about a written report concerning a personal injury or private lawsuit.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Brune firm | Law firm |
Mentioned in a hypothetical question as a source of a written report.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Court reporting agency |
The agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in reference to a "suspended New York attorney".
|
Relationships (1)
The document contains questioning about a belief held by an attorney that a connection existed between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney.
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
(A question asking the witness, Berke, about information received concerning a juror's potential connections.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.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
(The witness's response, recalling a conversation about Juror No. 1's past as a plaintiff in a lawsuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.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
(A hypothetical question posed to the witness about the importance of receiving information about a juror's litigation history.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,500 characters)
Case 2:20-00083-PA-E-N Document 646-30 Filed 03/22/22 Page 414 of 1717
A-5829
A-5829
372
C2grdau4
Berke - cross
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
C2grdau4
Berke - cross
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
DOJ-OGR-00010112
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document