MS. DAVIS
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Examiner witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Adverse witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Susan Elizabeth Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SNECHTMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Your Honor (The Court)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal examination/testimony | Examination of witness Susan Brune, including direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury deliberations and verdict validity (likely the Parse case being cite... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brune by an unnamed questioner, with objections from Mr. Schectman ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | An attorney, Ms. Davis, is addressing the court regarding a prior verdict and a motion for a new ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing in the case of United States of America v. Paul Daugerdas where the defense and prosecu... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Redirect and recross-examination of witness Brune. | Implied to be a court in th... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Edelstein. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing where Ms. Davis argues regarding Mr. Parse's intent. | Southern District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of Susan Elizabeth Brune. Context clues (graduated 1988 + 'almost 25... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Brune regarding the decision not to investigate Juror No. 1, Ms. Con... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of witness Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Shechtman regarding the jury selection p... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Recross-examination of witness Brune regarding a fraud alert, Social Security numbers, and the di... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Susan Brune | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-24 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding Case 1:20-cr-00339-AJN | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-24 | N/A | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune regarding legal disclosures and ethics. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | N/A | Court hearing conclusion; arguments on a motion concluded and decision reserved. | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Redirect and recross examination of witness Brune regarding their interpretation of a document, t... | Southern District | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Recross-examination of witness Brune by Mr. Schectman and the Court. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where arguments were made regarding Mr. Parse's alleged criminal involvement in t... | Southern District (implied) | View |
| 0022-02-24 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell). | Southern District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010179.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022. An unnamed speaker argues that Mr. Parse's implementation of end-of-year financial transactions was a knowing and criminal act to obstruct the IRS, not a simple mistake. Another speaker, Ms. Davis, addresses the judge, referring to additional evidence submitted in a written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues that there is overwhelming evidence of defendant Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud via backdated transactions. She also contends that his background as a CPA is relevant to proving his intent. The transcript also references another attorney, Mr. Shechtman, and the testimony of Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein regarding their knowledge of a juror, which they allegedly tried to conceal from the court.
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-00010172.jpg
This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.
DOJ-OGR-00010121.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 381) from a court transcript filed on August 17, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It lists the schedule of examinations (Direct, Cross, Redirect, Recross) for four individuals: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke, conducted by attorneys Davis, Shechtman, and Okula.
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-00010058.jpg
This document is page 318 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00438-DAO) filed on August 24, 2022. It features testimony from Ms. Brune under redirect examination by Ms. Davis, discussing legal ethics regarding whether an attorney should raise non-meritorious arguments if the government omits them. Ms. Brune asserts she would disclose facts or arguments if put in issue by the Court or government.
DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning, led by the Court and involving attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, covers a fraud alert related to two Social Security numbers and the ethical obligations of the witness's firm. A key point of discussion is whether the firm would have voluntarily disclosed information from a July 21 letter about an investigation into Juror No. 7 without being prompted by the Court or the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010056.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript detailing the redirect and recross-examination of a witness named Brune. Brune justifies not investigating a matter further by explaining that a document, which they viewed as similar to a credit report, only confirmed a pre-existing belief about two individuals sharing a name. The questioning then shifts, with attorney Mr. Schectman asking about redacted Social Security numbers on a document that Brune has seen in its unredacted form.
DOJ-OGR-00010049.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on the jury selection process, specifically whether Ms. Brune's firm was aware that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they believed her sworn answers during voir dire ruled this out and that they would not have wanted a suspended lawyer on the jury for a case involving lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00009986.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 246), filed as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) on August 24, 2022. It depicts the swearing-in and initial direct examination of witness Susan Elizabeth Brune by Ms. Davis on behalf of the Government. Brune establishes her credentials, noting she graduated from Harvard Law in 1988, has been practicing for nearly 25 years (placing the actual testimony date circa 2013), and is a former Assistant United States Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00009985.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing in the case of United States of America v. Paul Daugerdas. The prosecution and defense agree to a stipulation to enter a witness report (PMD Exhibit 4) and police records (PMD 27) into evidence, avoiding the need for the witness to testify. Following the admission of this evidence, the defense rests its case, and the government proceeds by calling its next witness, Susan Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00009505.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Page 27 of the specific session, Page 86 of the filing) filed on February 24, 2022. It marks the conclusion of a hearing where The Court thanks counsel (Ms. Davis) for arguments on a motion and states that the decision is reserved. The text mentions reliance on statements made by Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009500.jpg
This document is page 81 of Exhibit A-5924, filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). However, the text of the transcript appears to be from a separate legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank) being used as a legal precedent or argument within the Maxwell trial. Ms. Davis argues to the Court that evidence shows 'Mr. Parse' had knowing criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS, distinguishing his actions from a simple mistake.
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing arguments made by MS. DAVIS regarding defendant Mr. Parse. MS. DAVIS asserts overwhelming evidence of Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, specifically mentioning his role in backdated transactions and the relevance of his CPA background. The transcript also references testimony from Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, and communications related to the case after a jury verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00009442.jpg
This document is an index from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the examination of four witnesses: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke. The index provides the starting page numbers for the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations conducted by attorneys Ms. Davis, Mr. Shechtman, and Mr. Okula.
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-00009377.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the testimony of a witness named Brune. During redirect and recross examination, Brune explains that a particular document resembled a credit report and merely confirmed a pre-existing belief, hence they chose not to investigate further despite their past training as an AUSA. The questioning then turns to redacted Social Security numbers on the document and what the witness learned from an unredacted version.
DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, who is questioned about their firm's decision not to investigate potential juror misconduct by Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad, following a verdict on May 24th. Brune states that the firm did not believe there was an issue to investigate at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00009349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune by Ms. Davis. The testimony centers on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a Ms. Edelstein asked to see a 'suspension opinion.' There is a legal dispute regarding a question about Ms. Trzaskoma informing Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th, with the defense objecting to the accuracy of the date and the prosecution arguing they are permitted to lead an adverse witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Witness 'Brune' is being questioned about when they became aware of research conducted by their colleague Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50). The testimony focuses on whether Brune was included in email traffic regarding this research prior to jury deliberations. Attorneys Schectman and Davis argue over the timestamp (West Coast vs East Coast) of a specific note.
Motion for new trial / Ineffective assistance of counsel
Oral argument regarding Defendant Parse's motion for a new trial based on the Catherine Conrad juror issue.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity