DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
434 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
434 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Edelstein, by an attorney, Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses on why Ms. Edelstein and her colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, did not inform the court after discovering that a juror, Juror No. 1, shared the same name as a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad. Ms. Edelstein testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' they were the same person and therefore saw no reason to bring it to the court's attention.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness |
The person being cross-examined, referred to as Ms. Edelstein.
|
| Mr. Schectman | Attorney |
The attorney conducting the cross-examination.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal proceeding, addressed as 'your Honor'.
|
| Ms. Brune |
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Ms. Edelstein and Ms. Trzaskoma.
|
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Ms. Edelstein and Ms. Brune.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror who shares the same name as a suspended lawyer.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Suspended lawyer |
A suspended lawyer whose name was the same as Juror No. 1. Also mentioned as the author of a post-trial letter.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune firm | company |
A law firm where a discussion about raising a juror misconduct issue was questioned.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-05-12
A conversation on the plaza regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1.
the plaza
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of a conversation on May 12th between Ms. Edelstein, Ms. Brune, and Ms. Trzaskoma.
|
Relationships (3)
Mr. Schectman is conducting a cross-examination of Ms. Edelstein in a court proceeding.
They had a conversation on the plaza, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.
They had a conversation on the plaza, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Edelstein, on May 12th at the end of the conversation that you had on the plaza with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, why didn't you bring information about there being a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1, why didn't you bring that to the Court's attention?"Source
— Mr. Schectman
(Question during cross-examination about why information was withheld from the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
Quote #1
"At some point during the conversation we had discussed whether we should bring it to the Court's attention, but after we discussed the issue and concluded that it was inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer, we didn't see a reason to bring the fact that there was a suspended lawyer with the name Catherine Conrad to the Court's attention, that there was nothing we were going to ask the Court to do at that point."Source
— Ms. Edelstein
(Response explaining the decision not to inform the court about the juror name match.)
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
Quote #2
"At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper with the record?"Source
— Mr. Schectman
(Questioning the witness's motives for not disclosing the information.)
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
Quote #3
"No."Source
— Ms. Edelstein
(Denial of attempting to 'sandbag the Court or tamper with the record'.)
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,316 characters)
C2GFDAU3
Edelstein
353
1
THE COURT: Mr. Schectman?
2
MR. SCHECTMAN: Yes, your Honor.
3
CROSS-EXAMINATION
4
BY MR. SCHECTMAN:
5
Q. Ms. Edelstein, on May 12th at the end of the conversation
6
that you had on the plaza with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, why
7
didn't you bring information about there being a suspended
8
lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1, why didn't you bring
9
that to the Court's attention?
10
A. At some point during the conversation we had discussed
11
whether we should bring it to the Court's attention, but after
12
we discussed the issue and concluded that it was inconceivable
13
that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer, we didn't see a
14
reason to bring the fact that there was a suspended lawyer with
15
the name Catherine Conrad to the Court's attention, that there
16
was nothing we were going to ask the Court to do at that point.
17
Q. At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper
18
with the record?
19
A. No.
20
Q. At any time between the juror's verdict on May 24th and the
21
receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter on June 30, was there
22
any discussion in the Brune firm about raising a juror
23
misconduct issue as an issue on a post-trial motion?
24
A. There was none.
25
Q. And why not?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010093
Edelstein
353
1
THE COURT: Mr. Schectman?
2
MR. SCHECTMAN: Yes, your Honor.
3
CROSS-EXAMINATION
4
BY MR. SCHECTMAN:
5
Q. Ms. Edelstein, on May 12th at the end of the conversation
6
that you had on the plaza with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, why
7
didn't you bring information about there being a suspended
8
lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1, why didn't you bring
9
that to the Court's attention?
10
A. At some point during the conversation we had discussed
11
whether we should bring it to the Court's attention, but after
12
we discussed the issue and concluded that it was inconceivable
13
that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer, we didn't see a
14
reason to bring the fact that there was a suspended lawyer with
15
the name Catherine Conrad to the Court's attention, that there
16
was nothing we were going to ask the Court to do at that point.
17
Q. At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper
18
with the record?
19
A. No.
20
Q. At any time between the juror's verdict on May 24th and the
21
receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter on June 30, was there
22
any discussion in the Brune firm about raising a juror
23
misconduct issue as an issue on a post-trial motion?
24
A. There was none.
25
Q. And why not?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010093
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document