Juror No. 1
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
suspended New York attorney
|
Investigated connection |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness's firm
|
Professional informational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA Okula
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzskoma
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
suspended New York attorney
|
Potential identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Potential identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Potential connection |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Observational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune & Richard
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzskoma
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed suspended attorney
|
Potential identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Suspected identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Analyst subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Identity under investigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Investigative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation of Juror No. 1. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Personal injury suit involving the juror. | The Bronx | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigative work on Juror No. 1 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Online search | The government conducted a Google search on Juror No. 1 after she received a letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation into Juror No. 1, referenced in a July 21 letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | Juror No. 1 participated in voir dire, during which they stated their highest level of education ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation event | Juror No. 11 was displaced during jury deliberations due to a health emergency and replaced with ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted after Theresa Trzskoma developed d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A subsequent investigation regarding Juror No. 1 was conducted by Theresa Trzskoma. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial proceeding where a witness (Brune) is being questioned about a juror's behavior and a not... | Court | View |
| 2022-05-24 | Legal proceeding | The juror's verdict was delivered. | Court | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Legal proceeding / testimony / voir dire discussion | A question-and-answer session (likely a deposition or court testimony) where Edelstein questions ... | Implied to be within the So... | View |
| 2021-11-16 | N/A | Voir dire proceedings | Court | View |
| 2012-05-16 | Jury deliberations | On the third day of jury deliberations, Juror No. 11 needed an emergency medical procedure and wa... | N/A | View |
| 2011-07-08 | N/A | Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Defendants' Motion For A New Trial Or, In The Alternative, For An... | Court | View |
| 2011-07-08 | N/A | Declaration Of Theresa Trzaskoma In Support Of Defendants' Motion For A New Trial | Court | View |
| 2011-05-24 | Legal proceeding | A jury asked for a judge's clarification on legal terms ("willfully" and "knowingly") during deli... | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-24 | Conviction | David Parse was convicted on charges related to backdating, though the jury did not convict on th... | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-12 | N/A | Ms. Trzaskoma considered the possibility that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. | New York | View |
| 0010-05-01 | Communication | Juror No. 1 sent a note to the court. | Court | View |
| 0010-05-01 | Court event | Juror No. 1 sent a note, Judge Pauley disclosed the note after counsel had summed up | court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Daugertas. The transcript details a legal argument regarding a request to close the courtroom for the testimony of a witness, Catherine Conrad, due to sensitive information about her alcohol dependency and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior disclosures of the information and the defendants' right to a public proceeding. The transcript also reveals that Ms. Conrad intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and counsel has submitted an application to compel her testimony with immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010167.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.
DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
This document is the first page of a declaration by Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU, filed on April 6, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. Gillers outlines his qualifications and states he was asked to address whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard met their ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1.' The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice release (DOJ-OGR stamp), though the specific text on this page relates to the Daugerdas tax fraud case rather than explicitly mentioning Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
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-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-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript concerning the direct examination of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1' (Ms. Conrad). They discussed whether the juror might be a disbarred lawyer with the same name, but concluded she was not based on her educational background revealed during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 22, 2022. In it, a judge questions a witness about their law firm's obligation to disclose information, referencing a July 21 letter. The questioning also covers the court's decision to replace Juror No. 11 during deliberations and whether the witness considered raising a separate issue concerning Juror No. 1, which had been previously discussed with a Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00010095.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 20, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein. The Court questions the witness about a July 21 letter sent to the court, asking if her law firm would have voluntarily disclosed information about an investigation into 'Juror No. 1' without being prompted. The witness begins to affirm that they expected the information to eventually be revealed.
DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Edelstein, by an attorney, Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses on why Ms. Edelstein and her colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, did not inform the court after discovering that a juror, Juror No. 1, shared the same name as a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad. Ms. Edelstein testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' they were the same person and therefore saw no reason to bring it to the court's attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
DOJ-OGR-00010073.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the investigation into 'Juror No. 1' (identified as Catherine M. Conrad), specifically regarding her voir dire responses and a suspension report found via Westlaw. The witness discusses receiving a memo from David Benhamou while in San Francisco that detailed these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00010072.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the timeline of when the legal team became aware of information regarding 'Juror No. 1' and an individual named Catherine Conrad. The witness discusses a conversation with colleague Theresa Trzaskoma (who was overseas) on June 20th following the receipt of a letter from Juror No. 1, and the subsequent review of a memo prepared by paralegal David Benhamou.
DOJ-OGR-00010071.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned by an attorney, Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's knowledge of a Westlaw report and a series of email exchanges on May 12th involving his partner, Randy Kim, and a Theresa Trzaskoma. These emails allegedly led Trzaskoma to believe that 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, and the questioning also references a 'Jesus e-mail' and a July 15 court conference.
DOJ-OGR-00010069.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness is being questioned about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. The witness testifies that Ms. Trzaskoma, after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, concluded they were not the same person because the answers were inconsistent with the juror being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010066.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 320) filed on March 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned by the Court regarding their decision not to inform the government that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. Brune explains they assumed the government, with its superior investigative resources and paralegals, had already 'Googled' the juror and reached their own conclusions.
DOJ-OGR-00010059.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, where a witness named Brune is questioned by a judge. The witness defends their firm's failure to disclose information by stating they assumed the information was easily discoverable via a Google search and that the government was already aware of it, particularly in relation to 'Juror No. 1'. The witness also claims ignorance of a 'Westlaw report' concerning the juror at the time.
No Subject
A letter was received by Juror No. 1, which prompted the government to conduct a Google search on her.
Conviction of David Parse
A letter from a juror to the prosecutor explaining their deliberations and views on the conviction of David Parse, specifically regarding the conspiracy charge and backdating transactions.
Legal concepts
A note from Juror No. 1 mentioned several legal concepts, which led Ms. Trzaskoma to suspect a connection to a suspended attorney with the same name.
No Subject
A note from Juror No. 1 was received, which caused Theresa Trzskoma to have doubts and start an investigation.
Legal concepts
A note was received from Juror No. 1 that raised certain legal concepts, which created a connection to the name Catherine Conrad.
Legal concerns
A note from Juror No. 1 was received by Edelstein's party which 'raised certain legal concerns' and prompted Theresa Trzaskoma to recall information about a suspended lawyer.
Potential identity of Juror No. 1
A note received from Juror No. 1 prompted Ms. Trzaskoma to recall a suspended lawyer with the same name and wonder if they were the same person.
Unspecified
A note from Juror No. 1 was received, which prompted Theresa Trzskoma to have doubts and begin an investigation.
No Subject
A letter was received from Juror No. 1 on June 20th, which prompted a conversation between Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma.
Unknown
Letter received from Juror No. 1.
Court Exhibit 3
A note sent by Juror No. 1 to the court on May 10th, prior to the start of jury deliberations. Judge Pauley disclosed the note after summations were complete.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity