DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
459 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
459 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between "Juror No. 1" and Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer who was also involved in a personal injury lawsuit and allegedly shared the same address as the juror. Berke states they knew of the juror's lawsuit from voir dire but did not believe the juror was the same person as the disbarred lawyer.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Berke | Witness |
The individual being cross-examined in the transcript.
|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned in a hypothetical question from the questioner to Berke, as someone who might have provided information.
|
|
| Catherine Conrad | Suspended attorney / Personal injury lawyer |
A central figure in the questioning, described as a suspended lawyer involved in a personal injury lawsuit, who may b...
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror who is potentially the same person as Catherine Conrad.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The jury selection process during which a juror (Catherine Conrad) disclosed her involvement in a personal injury suit.
Courtroom
A personal injury lawsuit that Catherine Conrad was involved in.
Relationships (3)
The document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination where one is questioning the other.
The questioning revolves around whether these two individuals, who allegedly share the same address, are the same person.
Susan Brune is mentioned in a hypothetical question as someone who might provide information to Berke, suggesting a professional or collegial relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"My question to you is, would that information as background, if Susan Brune came to you and told you that we not only found a Catherine Conrad who was a suspended lawyer but we also found a Catherine Conrad who was involved in a personal injury lawsuit, is that something that you would have wanted to know at the time?"Source
— Unnamed Questioner
(A question posed to the witness, Berke, during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
Quote #1
"We knew that Catherine Conrad had said that she was involved in a personal injury suit. We knew that from her answers in the voir dire."Source
— Berke
(Berke's response, indicating prior knowledge of the juror's involvement in a lawsuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
Quote #2
"I did not believe that the person who had been a disbarred lawyer could have been or was this Juror No. 1 based on what I knew."Source
— Berke
(Berke's statement explaining their belief about the identity of Juror No. 1.)
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,559 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 117
A-5830
A-5830
C2grdau4
Berke - cross
373
1 juror herself had said in response to a question about other
2 litigation that she had been involved in a personal injury
3 case. That's what I'm referring to.
4 Q. Right. My question to you is, would that information as
5 background, if Susan Brune came to you and told you that we not
6 only found a Catherine Conrad who was a suspended lawyer but we
7 also found a Catherine Conrad who was involved in a personal
8 injury lawsuit, is that something that you would have wanted to
9 know at the time?
10 A. I'm not sure I understand. We knew that Catherine Conrad
11 had said that she was involved in a personal injury suit. We
12 knew that from her answers in the voir dire.
13 Q. If you saw a piece of paper that connected Catherine Conrad
14 who was Juror No. 1 and Catherine Conrad who was a personal
15 injury lawyer and a suspended attorney who had the same address
16 as the person involved in the lawsuit, would that have been of
17 interest to you?
18 A. You know, I really am not comfortable speculating. What I
19 can tell you is I told you what I knew. I did not believe that
20 the person who had been a disbarred lawyer could have been or
21 was this Juror No. 1 based on what I knew. That's really all I
22 can tell you.
23 Q. So, your answer to my direct question is that you can't
24 answer the question?
25 A. Well, I would object if I was sitting over there, but I'm
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Berke - cross
373
1 juror herself had said in response to a question about other
2 litigation that she had been involved in a personal injury
3 case. That's what I'm referring to.
4 Q. Right. My question to you is, would that information as
5 background, if Susan Brune came to you and told you that we not
6 only found a Catherine Conrad who was a suspended lawyer but we
7 also found a Catherine Conrad who was involved in a personal
8 injury lawsuit, is that something that you would have wanted to
9 know at the time?
10 A. I'm not sure I understand. We knew that Catherine Conrad
11 had said that she was involved in a personal injury suit. We
12 knew that from her answers in the voir dire.
13 Q. If you saw a piece of paper that connected Catherine Conrad
14 who was Juror No. 1 and Catherine Conrad who was a personal
15 injury lawyer and a suspended attorney who had the same address
16 as the person involved in the lawsuit, would that have been of
17 interest to you?
18 A. You know, I really am not comfortable speculating. What I
19 can tell you is I told you what I knew. I did not believe that
20 the person who had been a disbarred lawyer could have been or
21 was this Juror No. 1 based on what I knew. That's really all I
22 can tell you.
23 Q. So, your answer to my direct question is that you can't
24 answer the question?
25 A. Well, I would object if I was sitting over there, but I'm
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009434
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document