| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation into Theresa Trzskoma was conducted. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted by Theresa Trzskoma. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted after Theresa Trzskoma developed d... | N/A | View |
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.
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.
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity