DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
439 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (testimony)
File Size:
439 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness/Attorney |
Under direct examination regarding legal team conduct and timelines.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma | Attorney |
Mentioned as having a conversation regarding a suspended attorney.
|
| Barry Berke | Attorney |
Participant in conversation with Trzaskoma.
|
| Paul Schoeman | Attorney |
Participant in conversation with Trzaskoma.
|
| The Judge | Judge |
Issued an order requiring team presence during deliberations.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court (likely SDNY)
|
|
|
Physical location where deliberations and testimony occurred
|
Relationships (2)
Had a conversation regarding attorney status.
Had a conversation regarding attorney status.
Key Quotes (3)
"Ms. Brune, you know that Ms. Trzaskoma had a conversation with Barry Berke and Paul Schoeman about the possibility that she was a suspended attorney."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
Quote #1
"I personally was there throughout the deliberations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
Quote #2
"There is no question that we could have addressed the Court"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,454 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-2 Filed 03/24/22 Page 16 of 30
A-5746
A-5746
C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct
289
1 of fact in the question, that's all. He's concerned about the
2 date. I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but why don't
3 you see if you can establish a date with the witness.
4 A. I'm sorry.
5 Q. Ms. Brune, you know that Ms. Trzaskoma had a conversation
6 with Barry Berke and Paul Schoeman about the possibility that
7 she was a suspended attorney.
8 A. I know that now because I've seen these affidavits that
9 have come in. I don't think I knew it at the time.
10 Q. She did not tell you?
11 A. I don't have a very clear recollection of this, but I don't
12 think she did.
13 Q. Now, let's move to June 23rd. Let me -- withdrawn. You
14 will agree, would you not, that jury deliberations took a
15 relatively long time in this case.
16 A. It took eight days, as I recall.
17 Q. And pursuant to the judge's order, a member of your team
18 was in court or nearly in court that whole time, correct?
19 A. I personally was there throughout the deliberations.
20 Q. And at any point in time prior to the time of the verdict
21 you could have raised what your firm had learned both before
22 voir dire started and on May 12th, correct?
23 A. There is no question --
24 Q. And it's a could have. It's a could have.
25 A. There is no question that we could have addressed the Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010029
289
1 of fact in the question, that's all. He's concerned about the
2 date. I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but why don't
3 you see if you can establish a date with the witness.
4 A. I'm sorry.
5 Q. Ms. Brune, you know that Ms. Trzaskoma had a conversation
6 with Barry Berke and Paul Schoeman about the possibility that
7 she was a suspended attorney.
8 A. I know that now because I've seen these affidavits that
9 have come in. I don't think I knew it at the time.
10 Q. She did not tell you?
11 A. I don't have a very clear recollection of this, but I don't
12 think she did.
13 Q. Now, let's move to June 23rd. Let me -- withdrawn. You
14 will agree, would you not, that jury deliberations took a
15 relatively long time in this case.
16 A. It took eight days, as I recall.
17 Q. And pursuant to the judge's order, a member of your team
18 was in court or nearly in court that whole time, correct?
19 A. I personally was there throughout the deliberations.
20 Q. And at any point in time prior to the time of the verdict
21 you could have raised what your firm had learned both before
22 voir dire started and on May 12th, correct?
23 A. There is no question --
24 Q. And it's a could have. It's a could have.
25 A. There is no question that we could have addressed the Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010029
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document