DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
429 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
429 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Schectman | Witness/Lawyer |
Being addressed by the Court and answering questions during cross-examination.
|
| Ms. Edelstein | Lawyer |
Conducting the cross-examination of Mr. Schectman.
|
| Ms. Brune |
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Mr. Schectman and Ms. Trzaskoma.
|
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as being present during a conversation on the plaza with Mr. Schectman 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.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Schectman.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| Brune firm | company |
Mentioned in a question regarding discussions about raising a juror misconduct issue.
|
Timeline (3 events)
YYYY-05-12
A conversation took place regarding a suspended lawyer having the same name as a juror.
the plaza
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of a conversation on May 12th between Mr. Schectman, Ms. Brune, and Ms. Trzaskoma.
|
Relationships (3)
Ms. Edelstein is conducting a cross-examination of Mr. Schectman in a court proceeding, indicating an adversarial legal relationship.
They had a conversation on the plaza together with Ms. Trzaskoma, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.
They had a conversation on the plaza together with Ms. Brune, suggesting they are colleagues or associates.
Key Quotes (3)
"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
— Ms. Edelstein
(A question during cross-examination to Mr. Schectman.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.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..."Source
— Mr. Schectman
(Answering why he did not inform the court about the suspended lawyer.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
Quote #2
"At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper with the record?"Source
— Ms. Edelstein
(A question during cross-examination to Mr. Schectman.)
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,419 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 125 of 130
A-5810
A-5810
C2GFDAU3
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?
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
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009414
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document