DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
481 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
481 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript where a lawyer argues against a finding of 'ineffective assistance of counsel'. The speaker contends that the defense counsel, the Brune & Richard law firm, knowingly withheld information about a juror's 'suspension opinion' before trial, engaging in a prohibited 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'. This strategic choice, rather than negligence, should defeat the claim of ineffective counsel, according to the argument presented.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as the author of an affidavit put forth as evidence.
|
|
| Theresa Trzskoma |
Mentioned as someone who investigated Juror No. 1 after having doubts.
|
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Subject of an investigation by Theresa Trzskoma and author of a note that prompted doubts.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as having made clear that defense counsel cannot engage in a 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'.
|
| Brune & Richard law firm | company |
Identified as the law firm that had the 'suspension opinion' prior to voir dire and chose not to bring it to the Cour...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A hearing where documentary evidence and an affidavit from Susan Brune were adduced.
Court
The jury selection process during which the defense counsel knew about a 'suspension opinion' but chose not to raise it.
Court
defense counsel
government
Court
A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted by Theresa Trzskoma.
Relationships (2)
Theresa Trzskoma conducted an investigation regarding Juror No. 1.
Susan Brune's affidavit was put forth, and the Brune & Richard law firm is mentioned as the defense counsel, suggesting she is part of or associated with the firm.
Key Quotes (2)
"you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your trial conduct."Source
— Unnamed speaker (likely prosecutor)
(Citing the Second Circuit's precedent to argue against the defense's conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
Quote #1
"It's quite clear that this is not a case where the defense counsel had been given a piece of information and did nothing. That's quite, quite not what happened here."Source
— Unnamed speaker (likely prosecutor)
(Arguing that the defense counsel's inaction was a deliberate choice, not an oversight.)
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,666 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00033-GBD Document 646-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 676 of 1717
A-5919
A-5919
17
CAC3PARC
1 they had. Your Honor, that in our view ends the inquiry
2 completely. That finding alone is sufficient to defeat a
3 finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
4 The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other
5 circuits, that you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage
6 in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your
7 trial conduct. We know that based on the documentary evidence
8 and the evidence that was adduced at the hearing as well as the
9 evidence that was put forth in the affidavit of Susan Brune,
10 that the Brune & Richard law firm had the suspension opinion
11 prior to voir dire, and chose not bring it to this Court's
12 attention. As we all know engaged in subsequent investigation
13 regarding Juror No. 1, when Theresa Trzskoma started to have
14 certain doubts about her after the receipt of Juror No. 1's
15 note.
16 It's quite clear that this is not a case where the
17 defense counsel had been given a piece of information and did
18 nothing. That's quite, quite not what happened here. In fact,
19 we know that prior to voir dire, they discussed the suspension
20 opinion, they chose not to bring it to the Court's attention.
21 Instead relying simply on the voir dire answers, even though as
22 this Court pointed out, far more trivial issues were aired by
23 all of the parties, by the government and indeed by the Court,
24 in terms of trying to figure out who would be good jurors.
25 They chose not to bring that to the Court's attention then
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 they had. Your Honor, that in our view ends the inquiry
2 completely. That finding alone is sufficient to defeat a
3 finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
4 The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other
5 circuits, that you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage
6 in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your
7 trial conduct. We know that based on the documentary evidence
8 and the evidence that was adduced at the hearing as well as the
9 evidence that was put forth in the affidavit of Susan Brune,
10 that the Brune & Richard law firm had the suspension opinion
11 prior to voir dire, and chose not bring it to this Court's
12 attention. As we all know engaged in subsequent investigation
13 regarding Juror No. 1, when Theresa Trzskoma started to have
14 certain doubts about her after the receipt of Juror No. 1's
15 note.
16 It's quite clear that this is not a case where the
17 defense counsel had been given a piece of information and did
18 nothing. That's quite, quite not what happened here. In fact,
19 we know that prior to voir dire, they discussed the suspension
20 opinion, they chose not to bring it to the Court's attention.
21 Instead relying simply on the voir dire answers, even though as
22 this Court pointed out, far more trivial issues were aired by
23 all of the parties, by the government and indeed by the Court,
24 in terms of trying to figure out who would be good jurors.
25 They chose not to bring that to the Court's attention then
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010174
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document