Berke
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Questioner
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Client
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Craig Brubaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Adversarial cross examination |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is being cross-examined about their knowledge of a juror's background. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Witness Berke is questioned about their knowledge regarding a juror's background and potential co... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court testimony (Direct and Cross-examination) of Mr. Berke. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is cross-examined in a legal proceeding about his professional obligations ... | courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Attorney Mr. Okula cross-examines witness Berke during a legal proceeding. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A past conversation is discussed where the witness (Berke) and another person noted their belief ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | A past conversation recalled by Berke where it was noted that Juror No. 1 had been a plaintiff in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | A witness named Berke is being cross-examined about their duties as an attorney and officer of th... | Courtroom or deposition set... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mr. Berke regarding attorney ethics and reporting juror misconduct. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of a witness named Berke regarding an assessment of possible juror misconduct. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-03-22 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Berke. | N/A | View |
| 2022-03-22 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman, followed by the witness being ex... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Berke regarding the assessment of potential juror misconduct involvi... | N/A | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Berke by attorney Mr. Okula during a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2011-05-12 | Meeting | Berke recalls speaking with Susan Brune about Catherine Conrad in the witness room. The date is n... | witness room | View |
| 2011-05-11 | Court proceeding | The Court read a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, during an afternoon session. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on why Berke did not further investigate a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, with Berke stating it was concluded they were different people based on the voir dire. After the examination, the witness is excused, and the court asks if the defense, representing a defendant named Parse, has any more witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00010115.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula poses a hypothetical question about what steps Berke would take if he discovered that a juror, specifically Juror No. 1, was a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Berke refuses to answer the question, stating it is a far-fetched and speculative scenario that he has never experienced.
DOJ-OGR-00010114.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning, likely by an attorney named Mr. Okula, centers on whether Berke made an assessment of potential juror misconduct involving a juror and a suspended attorney with a similar name. Berke repeatedly states an unwillingness to speculate and claims that, based on personal experience, no issue was apparent at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010113.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning centers on whether Berke was aware of, or would have been interested in, a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who had previously been involved in a personal injury lawsuit. Berke avoids answering the hypothetical question directly, stating an unwillingness to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about Juror No. 1, specifically concerning a potential connection to a suspended New York attorney and the juror's past involvement as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Berke denies being told details about the alleged connection but recalls discussing the juror's prior lawsuit.
DOJ-OGR-00010111.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, who is an attorney. Berke explains his cautious approach to his professional obligations, stating he always researches the rules before acting on sensitive information. He affirms that if he believed a juror committed misconduct, he would feel obligated to inform the court after reviewing the relevant laws.
DOJ-OGR-00010110.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a Mr. Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. An unnamed questioner presses Mr. Berke on whether an attorney has an ethical obligation to report juror misconduct to the court. Mr. Berke consistently avoids a direct yes-or-no answer, stating it's a complex ethical and legal question and that his practice is to consult the relevant ethics rules when such issues arise.
DOJ-OGR-00010109.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 369) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. The text captures the end of a direct examination by Mr. Shechtman, where Berke recounts a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a mistaken identity involving a disbarred lawyer. The document then transitions to cross-examination by Mr. Okula, who makes a remark about checking the cross-examination off his 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00010108.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an individual named Berke. Berke testifies about events on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from Juror Catherine Conrad regarding jury instructions. Berke also discusses his professional relationship with another lawyer, Susan Brune, who represented David Parse in the same case, and recalls speaking with her about the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula questions Berke about a hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, serving as Juror No. 1. Berke repeatedly refuses to answer, calling the scenario 'far-fetched' and an attempt to make him speculate on an experience he's never had.
DOJ-OGR-00009435.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding potential juror misconduct. The questioning focuses on whether more information would be useful to assess a connection between a juror and a suspended attorney with the same name, but the witness repeatedly refuses to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of 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 a 'suspended New York attorney.' Berke denies being told specific details but recalls a conversation where it was noted that the juror had previously been a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
DOJ-OGR-00009432.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of an individual named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. Berke, an attorney, is questioned about their professional obligations upon learning of potential juror misconduct. Berke affirms a belief in the obligation to report such information to the court, but emphasizes they would first thoroughly research the applicable rules and laws to ensure full compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00009431.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning focuses on legal ethics, specifically asking Berke if an attorney is obligated to report juror misconduct to the Court. Berke attempts to qualify his answer rather than giving a simple 'yes' or 'no,' stating he relies on ethical rules and commentary when such issues arise.
DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
Knowledge of connection between Juror No. 1 and Catherine...
An unnamed questioner is cross-examining a witness named Berke about what they knew regarding a potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who was involved in a personal injury lawsuit and allegedly shared the same address as the juror.
Potential connection between Juror No. 1 and Catherine Co...
An unnamed questioner cross-examines the witness, Berke, about their knowledge of a potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who was also involved in a personal injury lawsuit. Berke states discomfort with speculating on a hypothetical connection.
Identity confusion regarding a disbarred lawyer
Discussion about a note and confirming that a person was not a disbarred lawyer but had a BA in humanities.
Identity verification/Background check
Discussion regarding a person identified as a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the subject; concluded it was not the same person due to educational background.
Juror Catherine Conrad
Berke recalls speaking with Susan Brune about Juror Catherine Conrad on the day after the juror's note was read in court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity