DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
447 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
447 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their knowledge of another person's (Ms. Trzaskoma) suspicion. The core issue is whether Ms. Trzaskoma believed there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name, and whether the witness ever asked for the evidence underlying this suspicion. The witness states they did not ask for underlying documents or information.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness |
Appears to be the person being questioned (answering as 'A').
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
A person whose beliefs about a juror and an attorney are the subject of the questioning.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Mentioned as the source of a note and as potentially being connected to a suspended attorney.
|
| MR. GAVI | Attorney |
Makes an objection during the questioning.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Rules on an objection, overruling it.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma |
Full name for Ms. Trzaskoma, mentioned in a question.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in reference to a "suspended New York attorney".
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses Ms. Trzaskoma's suspicion that Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name might be the same person, based on a note from the juror mentioning legal concepts.
Edelstein is being questioned about conversations with Ms. Trzaskoma and what steps, if any, were taken to verify her suspicions.
Key Quotes (3)
"I don't believe she had formed a belief about the New York attorney. She mentioned that there was an attorney, a suspended attorney with the same name, and that after having received the note from Juror No. 1 that mentioned several legal concepts, she had thought that could it possibly be they were the same person."Source
— A (Edelstein)
(Responding to a question about the attorney, explaining Ms. Trzaskoma's thought process.)
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
Quote #1
"So do you mean to tell us that you at no point asked Theresa Trzaskoma for what underlying information she saw that led her to believe that there was a possible connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney? Yes or no."Source
— Q (Unnamed Questioner)
(Pressing the witness on whether they investigated the basis for Ms. Trzaskoma's belief.)
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
Quote #2
"No, I did not."Source
— A (Edelstein)
(Answering whether they asked Ms. Trzaskoma how she formed her belief or what she looked at.)
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,556 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 97 of 130
A-5782
A-5782
325
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 attorney?
2 A. I don't believe she had formed a belief about the New York
3 attorney. She mentioned that there was an attorney, a
4 suspended attorney with the same name, and that after having
5 received the note from Juror No. 1 that mentioned several legal
6 concepts, she had thought that could it possibly be they were
7 the same person.
8 Q. And at what point did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for the
9 evidence, the underlying documents or information that led her
10 to believe that there was a possible connection between Juror
11 No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?
12 A. I didn't realize that there was a document that she was
13 basing any belief on. It was the fact that there was a
14 suspended lawyer with the same name.
15 Q. Well, didn't you ask how did you form this belief or what
16 did you look at to see that there was a suspended New York
17 attorney? Did you ask that question?
18 MR. GAVI: Objection. Three questions. Compound.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. So do you mean to tell us that you at no point asked
22 Theresa Trzaskoma for what underlying information she saw that
23 led her to believe that there was a possible connection between
24 Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney? Yes or no.
25 A. I'm not sure that was a yes or no question, but she
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
1 attorney?
2 A. I don't believe she had formed a belief about the New York
3 attorney. She mentioned that there was an attorney, a
4 suspended attorney with the same name, and that after having
5 received the note from Juror No. 1 that mentioned several legal
6 concepts, she had thought that could it possibly be they were
7 the same person.
8 Q. And at what point did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for the
9 evidence, the underlying documents or information that led her
10 to believe that there was a possible connection between Juror
11 No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?
12 A. I didn't realize that there was a document that she was
13 basing any belief on. It was the fact that there was a
14 suspended lawyer with the same name.
15 Q. Well, didn't you ask how did you form this belief or what
16 did you look at to see that there was a suspended New York
17 attorney? Did you ask that question?
18 MR. GAVI: Objection. Three questions. Compound.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. So do you mean to tell us that you at no point asked
22 Theresa Trzaskoma for what underlying information she saw that
23 led her to believe that there was a possible connection between
24 Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney? Yes or no.
25 A. I'm not sure that was a yes or no question, but she
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009386
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document