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-00009391.jpg
This document is a legal transcript from a deposition where the witness, Edelstein, is questioned about the discovery of information regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Edelstein's side learned from a Westlaw report that the juror was a suspended attorney, referencing an email sent within the firm, a letter received on June 20, and a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009390.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness, Edelstein, recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 was the same individual as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. Edelstein testifies that while Ms. Trzaskoma initially considered the possibility, she concluded they were not the same person after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, which were inconsistent with being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009389.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2022. Edelstein is being questioned about his awareness that a juror, Ms. Conrad (Juror No. 1), was the same person as Catherine M. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. He states that he initially found it 'inconceivable' they were the same person and was not focused on her middle initial, and denies being told by Theresa Trzaskoma about reports or documents that would have clarified the juror's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00009388.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Edelstein questions a witness about the identity of 'Catherine Conrad,' specifically investigating if two individuals with that name, one identified as 'Juror No. 1,' are the same person. The discussion also covers the firm's knowledge regarding Juror No. 1's identity and the involvement of Theresa Trzaskoma in related inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their knowledge of another person's (Ms. Trzaskoma) suspicion. The core issue is whether Ms. Trzaskoma believed there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name, and whether the witness ever asked for the evidence underlying this suspicion. The witness states they did not ask for underlying documents or information.
DOJ-OGR-00009384.jpg
This document is a legal transcript of testimony given by Ms. Edelstein. She is questioned about whether her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her on May 12 about potential misconduct by Juror No. 1. Ms. Edelstein denies being told that Trzaskoma believed the juror was a suspended New York attorney and claims she cannot recall the specifics of their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00009381.jpg
This page is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features a redirect examination of a witness named Brune by the Court. The discussion centers on the vetting of 'Juror No. 1,' specifically whether the witness knew the juror was a suspended lawyer and why the witness did not alert the government to this possibility, assuming the government had also 'Googled' the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009380.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned by the Judge about why his firm did not disclose knowledge regarding 'Juror No. 1.' Brune argues that the information was easily accessible via Google and assumed the government had also found it, specifically mentioning a letter the government received and a 'Westlaw report.'
DOJ-OGR-00009378.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The Court questions Brune about their firm's ethical obligation to disclose information from a July 21 letter concerning an investigation into Juror No. 1. Brune states that while they have an ethical duty to be accurate and honest, they do not believe they were obligated to proactively disclose the information or anticipate the government's arguments if the court had not inquired.
DOJ-OGR-00009342.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune is questioned about a prior conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which they discussed the possibility that Juror No. 1 might be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they dismissed the idea as nonsensical and asserts confidently that Ms. Trzaskoma never mentioned a Westlaw report on the matter, citing the thorough nature of another colleague, Laurie Edelstein, as the basis for her certainty.
DOJ-OGR-00009341.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness by an attorney named Brune. The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein while heading to 52 Duane, where they speculated that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer, referencing a personal injury suit in the Bronx and legal concepts like vicarious liability.
DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why Brune and their team did not inform the court about information suggesting a juror was a suspended attorney. Brune explains that the information, found via a Google search by a colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was initially dismissed as pertaining to a different person and that they did not have a physical printout of the document in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg
This court transcript excerpt details the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, who is an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations regarding juror misconduct and a specific conversation on May 12, 2011, with Theresa Trzaskoma. The conversation concerned whether a juror who sent a note with legal terms was a lawyer previously identified through a Google search.
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