Nardello
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | After receiving a juror letter, Edelstein called Nardello to assist in gathering information, whi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Juror No. 1 | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 22, 2022. In it, an attorney argues to a judge that an opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice to "sandbag" the court, but rather a result of incompetence, described as being "careless" and "inept." The speaker references a standard from the Second Circuit and the judge's own prior findings to argue that the other counsel "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00010081.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the questioning of an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness of a juror's (Catherine Conrad) past involvement in a lawsuit, information received from Theresa Trzaskoma via a Westlaw report, and the subsequent decision to hire Nardello to investigate after receiving a 'juror letter'.
DOJ-OGR-00009970.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. The page indexes words from 'measure' to 'next', providing the page and line number for each occurrence in the transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00009970.
DOJ-OGR-00009484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney argues before a judge. The attorney contends that the opposing counsel's failure to properly investigate a witness was not a strategic tactic ('sandbagging') but rather incompetence, carelessness, and an oversight, quoting the Second Circuit's language. The speaker believes this failure to act constitutes prejudice and that the opposing side "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg
This is a court transcript page filed on February 24, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about whether their legal team had the resources to investigate Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, specifically regarding a prior personal injury lawsuit she failed to fully disclose during voir dire. Edelstein admits they had the resources to call investigators (Nardello) but did not do so initially because they didn't believe the Catherine Conrad in the Westlaw report was the same person as the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009291.jpg
This document is page 26 of a 130-page index from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012. The index is for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., and was prepared by Southern District Reporters. This specific page lists words alphabetically from 'measure' to 'next' and provides the page and line numbers where each word appears in the full transcript.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity