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-00010045.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 305) filed on May 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned about the disclosure of a private investigation firm, Nardello, in a legal brief and during a conference call with Judge Pauley. The testimony confirms that the Nardello firm performed jury research and investigative work pertaining to 'Juror No. 1' after a specific letter was received.
DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on a past conversation between Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1,' specifically investigating whether the juror was actually a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' for a lawyer to lie under oath about their identity and denies that a Westlaw report was mentioned during their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00010020.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 4, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune describes a conversation with colleagues Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein (Theresa) while walking to 52 Duane, concerning suspicions that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. They discuss the juror's background revealed during voir dire, specifically a personal injury suit in the Bronx, and the juror's use of legal concepts like 'vicarious liability' and 'respondeat superior' which the witness notes are out of place in a criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00010017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies that they had no concerns about the behavior of a particular juror and recounts the circumstances surrounding a note sent by Juror No. 1 on May 10th. The witness recalls that Judge Pauley disclosed the note to the court only after summations were complete, believing it would have been unfair to do so in the middle of them.
DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations, specifically regarding information she discussed with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, 2011, concerning Juror No. 1. The discussion revolved around a note the juror had sent about legal terms and whether that juror was a lawyer Trzaskoma had previously found via a Google search.
DOJ-OGR-00009910.jpg
This document is an index page (page vii) from a court filing, listing various evidentiary exhibits labeled GX (Government Exhibits) and DX (Defense Exhibits). The exhibits include correspondence from 1998-2003 involving individuals such as Lisa Hurley, James Beumel, and Erwin Mayer, as well as internal communications involving Deutsche Bank and Jenkens & Gilchrist (J&G). The document also lists legal motions from 2011 regarding a new trial and evidentiary hearing concerning 'Juror No. 1'.
DOJ-OGR-00009515.jpg
This legal document, dated March 7, 2013, from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, argues for a lower sentencing guideline for a client. It contests the Probation Office's preliminary calculation, which suggests a 292-365 month sentence based on a $1.5 billion tax loss. To support its argument, the document cites a letter from a juror detailing the conviction of David Parse, suggesting his conviction was limited to "backdating" transactions and not a broader conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009476.jpg
This is an affidavit from David Parse, a defendant in case S3 09 Cr. 581 in the Southern District of New York, filed on August 7, 2012. Parse states that he only became aware of a potential issue regarding a juror named Conrad being a suspended lawyer after his legal team, the Brune firm, had already filed a motion for a new trial. He specifies learning this information after a conference call on July 15, 2011, and recalls his lawyer, Theresa Trzaskoma, had previously dismissed a concern about a prospective juror having the same name during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009447.jpg
This document is the first page of a legal declaration by Stephen Gillers, a law professor and expert in legal ethics, filed on April 6, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gillers outlines his extensive qualifications and states that he has been asked by the court to provide an opinion on whether the attorneys for clients named Bruce and Richard fulfilled their ethical obligations regarding the potential failure to disclose a letter and an investigation concerning 'Juror No. 1' during March, May, and July of 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00009438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing. Both the defense attorneys for defendants Parse and Field, as well as the government attorney, rest their cases. The judge then instructs the parties to submit post-hearing briefs, specifically requesting they address the strongest evidence from the hearing and a key ethical question regarding the potential failure of attorneys for 'Brune & Richard' to disclose a July 21 letter and an investigation concerning Juror No. 1.
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-00009427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2012, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, questions Mr. Schoeman about a conversation on or after May 13th, in which Ms. Trzaskoma told him she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. The witness confirms the conversation but states he had no specific understanding of her reasoning, attributing the information sharing to their established pattern during the lengthy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney named Schoeman. The questioning centers on what Schoeman knew about allegations that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended attorney, referencing a potential Westlaw report and an internal firm email he claims not to have seen. Schoeman maintains he was unaware of the specific information and only took action by asking about the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman, filed on February 24, 2012. The questioning centers on why Schoeman did not conduct a more thorough follow-up investigation into a concern raised by Ms. Trzaskoma about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended attorney.' Schoeman states that the basis for the concern was simply that they shared the same name, and the issue was dismissed after reviewing voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009422.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness by Mr. Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square, concerning Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad). They discussed a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the juror but concluded it was a different person because the juror's educational background did not include law school.
DOJ-OGR-00009417.jpg
This court transcript details the questioning of a witness by the judge regarding a potential issue with Juror No. 1. The judge asks why the witness did not raise this issue, which they had discussed with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma on May 12, at the time when another juror, Juror No. 11, was replaced due to a health emergency. The witness responds that it did not occur to them to raise the issue at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. It features testimony from a witness named Edelstein regarding a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1. They debated whether the juror was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad but concluded at the time that it was 'inconceivable' based on voir dire responses, specifically regarding education.
DOJ-OGR-00009398.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by a witness named Edelstein. He recounts receiving a 'surprising and shocking' letter from a juror, which he found disturbing due to its odd tone. Edelstein discusses his process of connecting the contents of this letter with information previously provided by Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, and his subsequent conversation about the letter with his partner, Randy Kim.
DOJ-OGR-00009394.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2020. Edelstein is questioned about receiving a memo from David Benhamou via email while in San Francisco, which detailed information on 'Juror No. 1', an 'Appellate Division order', and a 'Westlaw report'. The questioning also reveals that Edelstein's partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, referred to the information as a 'dossier' and that Edelstein reviewed a suspension report concerning a Catherine M. Conrad from Bronxville.
DOJ-OGR-00009393.jpg
This document is a transcript of testimony from an individual named Edelstein. Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of a dossier or information gathered on Catherine Conrad. The witness recalls a conversation on June 20th with Theresa Trzaskoma about the information and being directed to a memo from a paralegal, David Benhamou, but denies characterizing the information as a 'dossier' and is uncertain about the exact timeline of events relative to a July 15th conference.
DOJ-OGR-00009392.jpg
This document is page 331 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The testimony involves a witness named Edelstein being questioned by Mr. Okula about discussions regarding a 'Westlaw report' and email exchanges concerning 'Juror No. 1' possibly being a 'suspended attorney.' The witness confirms discussing the matter with their partner, Randy Kim, in San Francisco, who had corresponded with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th.
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.
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.
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.
Legal concepts
A note was received from Juror No. 1 that raised certain legal concepts, which created a connection to the name Catherine Conrad.
Unknown
Letter received from Juror No. 1.
No Subject
A letter was received from Juror No. 1 on June 20th, which prompted a conversation between Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma.
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