DOJ-OGR-00009496.jpg
484 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
484 KB
Summary
This document is a legal transcript where a speaker argues that the law firm Brune & Richard made a deliberate, strategic choice not to inform the court about a potential issue with a juror. The speaker contends that on May 12, after an investigation concerning Theresa Trzskoma, the lawyers, including Susan Brune, consciously decided against taking action, which the speaker believes cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for their client, Mr. Parse.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Parse | Client |
Mentioned as the client being defended by Brune & Richard.
|
| Theresa Trzskoma |
The subject of an investigation mentioned in the document.
|
|
| Laurie Edelstein |
Mentioned as having testified at a hearing about the alternatives considered by the lawyers.
|
|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as one of the lawyers who decided against further investigation.
|
|
| Mr. Shechtman |
Mentioned as having been questioned by the Court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune & Richard | Law firm |
The law firm representing Mr. Parse, whose lawyers' strategic choices are being discussed.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (4 events)
An investigation into Theresa Trzskoma was conducted.
A hearing where Laurie Edelstein testified about the alternatives considered by the Brune & Richard lawyers.
Court
Laurie Edelstein
Brune & Richard lawyers
May 12
Brune & Richard lawyers reviewed alternatives after an investigation and decided to do nothing regarding an issue with a juror.
Brune & Richard lawyers
Susan Brune
Relationships (1)
The text refers to "the Brune & Richard's defense of Mr. Parse," indicating a lawyer-client relationship.
Key Quotes (1)
"no"Source
— Susan Brune
(Her response when the lawyers considered whether they should do more investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00009496.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,617 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
A-5920
A-5920
18
CAC3PARC
which I think is very significant. And it is significant in
part because I think if we can say anything, that we all know
based on the Brune & Richard's defense of Mr. Parse, that if
they had any actual and real concern about a suspended attorney
being on this jury, if they really thought that that was not in
their client's interest, you know, we all know that they would
have brought it to the Court's attention during voir dire. And
if not at voir dire, then after the results of the Theresa
Trzskoma investigation.
This is absolutely a situation where the Brune &
Richard lawyers, on May 12, after the investigation that they
had, they looked at all the alternatives. We know because
Laurie Edelstein testified at the hearing, they considered the
three possible alternatives. They considered whether or not
they should do more investigation, and Susan Brune said no.
They considered whether or not they should bring it to the
Court's attention, and they said no. So they decided to do
nothing. And it is that conscious and deliberate choice that
we believe means that they made a strategic choice that cannot
form the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
How do we know in the government's view that this
indeed was a tactical choice? As this Court just pointed out
with regard to the questioning of Mr. Shechtman, they did not
bring that knowledge to the attention of the Court either in
the brief, where they made it appear as if they first learned
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
which I think is very significant. And it is significant in
part because I think if we can say anything, that we all know
based on the Brune & Richard's defense of Mr. Parse, that if
they had any actual and real concern about a suspended attorney
being on this jury, if they really thought that that was not in
their client's interest, you know, we all know that they would
have brought it to the Court's attention during voir dire. And
if not at voir dire, then after the results of the Theresa
Trzskoma investigation.
This is absolutely a situation where the Brune &
Richard lawyers, on May 12, after the investigation that they
had, they looked at all the alternatives. We know because
Laurie Edelstein testified at the hearing, they considered the
three possible alternatives. They considered whether or not
they should do more investigation, and Susan Brune said no.
They considered whether or not they should bring it to the
Court's attention, and they said no. So they decided to do
nothing. And it is that conscious and deliberate choice that
we believe means that they made a strategic choice that cannot
form the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
How do we know in the government's view that this
indeed was a tactical choice? As this Court just pointed out
with regard to the questioning of Mr. Shechtman, they did not
bring that knowledge to the attention of the Court either in
the brief, where they made it appear as if they first learned
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009496
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document