DOJ-OGR-00010134.jpg

Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 9 of 29
[Overlapping header text: Case 20-03083... Document 646-2 Filed 08/24/20 Page 86 of 171]
A-5851

The Court: All right. I do. Because I would like to make certain that any defendant who had a jury consultant on the matter also make certain that the jury consultant did not have any information on Juror Number One.

Trzaskoma: The only thing additional that I would offer your Honor is—well, we can address this in a letter. I think it’s more appropriate.

29. This colloquy must be read in its (rather brief) entirety, that is, as a whole. Trzaskoma’s statement implies that the answer to the Court’s question from Brune & Richard would not be that it had no information at all. It would not require a letter to say only that. It is, instead, clear that Trzaskoma had something “additional...to offer,” and chose to accept the Court’s invitation to say it in a letter, which was done on July 21 in a fashion that adequately disclosed the firm’s earlier research and internal communications on the subject. “The general rule is that statements must be taken in context, and that related parts of a document must be taken together. That a hasty reader might take the first paragraph out of context is not in the present circumstances enough to brand the memorandum as false.” The memorandum must be “read as a whole.” Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d 33, 40-41 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 appeal) (citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

30. For the reasons stated, my opinion is that the actions of the Brune & Richard lawyers throughout the trial and in the months following with respect to the information they had obtained about Catherine Conrad were entirely consistent with their responsibilities under the lawyer ethics rules.

[Signature]
Stephen Gillers

DOJ-OGR-00010134