Brune
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Richard
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Dennis Donahue
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Unnamed jury consultant
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Theresa
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
Kramer Levin
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
C2GFDAU1
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Nardello firm
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
hillary
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Nardello
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Nardello firm
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Deposition or Court Testimony of Ms. Brune | Court/Deposition Room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection / Voir Dire preparation | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Joint Defense Agreement Discussion | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of a witness regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad's background check. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Brune regarding Juror No. 1. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of witness Brune regarding the vetting of Juror No. 1. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation between Brune and Trzaskoma regarding the vetting of Juror No. 1. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Representation of David Parse by Brune. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation at Foley Square involving the witness (Brune). | Foley Square | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Trzaskoma performed a Google search on Juror Catherine Conrad and found a document indicating... | Court / Legal Office | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal team discussion regarding whether to inform Judge Pauley about the juror's potential status. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of a witness regarding a document detailing addresses and household members. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of witness Brune. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference call with Judge Pauley | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation while walking to 52 Duane | En route to 52 Duane | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of Brune regarding his professional relationship and actions as the lawyer for... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding her understanding of 'significant informati... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Recross-examination of witness Brune regarding a fraud alert, Social Security numbers, and the di... | 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 | Trial | A court trial where witness Brune was present every day and observed the jury. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her ethical obligations as an officer of the court. | court | 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 | Legal testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding his firm's jury selection process. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection preparation | A team at Brune's firm, including Ms. Trzaskoma and two lawyers from San Francisco, gathered info... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court trial | Testimony regarding a legal team's use of internet and e-mail in the courtroom during a trial, fr... | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009235.jpg
This document is a table of contents (page xi) from a court filing dated February 24, 2022, listing exhibits and transcripts related to a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It indexes materials from 2011 and 2012, including emails between various individuals (Viviann Stapp, Randy Kim, Suann Ingle, Kendra Melrose), jury selection materials, internal emails from 'Brune & Richard,' and transcripts of telephone conferences and new trial hearings. The document also references a supplemental memorandum of law filed by the United States opposing a motion for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010061.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number 1:19-cr-00338) featuring testimony from a witness named Brune and statements by prosecutor Mr. Okula. Okula addresses the court to correct the record regarding Ms. Brune's speculation, stating that the government did not conduct independent 'Google research' upon receiving a specific note because they viewed it as innocuous and not a Brady violation. He clarifies that the government only realized the significance of the information when the defendants filed a motion.
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.
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-00010055.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal deposition from March 24, 2022, involving a witness identified as Brune. The questioning focuses on an email and a Westlaw report concerning a person's identity and status as a suspended attorney from the New York State Office of Court Administration. The witness expresses a belief that there was a case of mistaken identity, where a "Bronxville stay-at-home wife" was confused with a suspended lawyer of the same name.
DOJ-OGR-00010054.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination by Brune). The witness is being questioned about a document containing addresses (Bronx and Bronxville) and lawsuits. The testimony focuses on a specific entry on page 9 of that document, which lists Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' under 'Additional Individuals' rather than 'Head of Household.' The questioning also references email traffic from May 12th involving Ms. Trzaskoma identifying Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00010052.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Davis. During the examination, a document identified as Ms. Brune's "July 21st letter at the Court" is introduced as Government Exhibit 28. After opposing counsel, Mr. Shechtman, states he has no objection, the Court officially receives the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010050.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the strategic decisions regarding a juror (Ms. Conrad), specifically regarding her status as a recovering alcoholic and potential misconduct involving lying during voir dire. The witness confirms receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad to Mr. Okula in June 2011 but states her firm did not consider raising a juror misconduct issue at that time because she did not believe misconduct had occurred.
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-00010047.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5764) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on the preparation of a 'July 21st letter' and whether the witness met with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein to prepare for the current hearing. Brune denies meeting for hearing preparation but acknowledges they worked closely to reconstruct events for the letter, specifically referencing an email with the text 'Jesus, I do think that it's her'.
DOJ-OGR-00010046.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on jury research conducted for jury selection, a specific telephone call on July 22nd with a judge regarding a juror connected to Catherine Conrad, and the witness's failure to identify "Mr. Nardello's firm" during that call. The transcript concludes with the witness confirming their firm resisted a subsequent government discovery request by filing a brief claiming the information was protected as client work product.
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-00010043.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune. She is questioned about whether a legal brief she submitted contained material omissions. Ms. Brune denies any intent to omit material facts, stating they tried to be accurate and were shocked by information received in a subsequent letter.
DOJ-OGR-00010041.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on March 24, 2022. Brune testifies about the circumstances surrounding the filing of a legal brief, explaining that he informed other lawyers on the case about his team's investigation, and they were completely surprised by the findings. He also discusses a July 22nd call and his strategic thinking regarding a potential "waiver issue" that he anticipated the government would raise.
DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a lawyer, Ms. Brune, regarding her firm's knowledge of potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune asserts that the legal standard requires 'actual knowledge' of misconduct, which she claims her firm did not possess, though she admits they erroneously believed no misconduct occurred. The questioning also references a July 22nd telephone call where Ms. Brune apparently acknowledged her client, defendant Parse, was in a different situation compared to other defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about their knowledge of statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during a July 15th conference call. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Brune read the call transcript in relation to filing a letter on July 21st, implying that Brune may have known Ms. Trzaskoma's statements were incorrect. Brune denies this assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief, revealing that it omitted key information about a 'suspension opinion' and contained inaccuracies regarding the catalyst for an investigation, which was allegedly a letter from a Ms. Conrad. The transcript suggests that another individual, Ms. Trzaskoma, was responsible for drafting the facts in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010029.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 covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
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-00010027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness corrects a previous statement about a timeline, clarifying that Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court on May 15th, and that the witness first learned about the relevant voir dire on July 18th. The witness also describes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being a "very thorough person."
DOJ-OGR-00010026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of Ms. Brune (a former AUSA), questioning her decision not to alert the Court about Google search results regarding a juror found around March 12th. Brune testifies that she did not report it because she relied on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife,' leading Brune to believe the search results referred to a different person.
Discussions about potential juror Catherine Conrad
An unnamed questioner asks Brune about discussions concerning Catherine Conrad. Brune recounts how their team discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name and the subsequent strategic conversation with a jury consultant about whether to strike her from the jury.
Decision not to investigate based on a document and redac...
Attorneys question witness Brune about a document likened to a credit report, why it didn't prompt further investigation, and about redacted Social Security numbers on another document.
Juror research and team member roles
Brune testifies about the scope of juror research, clarifying it was limited to database research as per instructions. Brune also describes the role of Suann Ingle, who created and presented graphics for the trial.
Investigation findings
Brune called other lawyers in the case to inform them of findings from an investigation, and they reportedly "expressed complete surprise."
Witness's observations during a trial
An unnamed questioner conducts a direct examination of the witness, Brune, regarding their presence at a trial, their view of the jury, and their specific observations of a juror named Ms. Conrad.
Discussions about potential juror Catherine Conrad
An unnamed questioner asks Brune about discussions concerning Catherine Conrad. Brune recounts how their team discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name and the subsequent strategic conversation with a jury consultant about whether to strike her from the jury.
Investigation findings
Brune called the other lawyers in the case to inform them of the findings from their investigation, to which the other lawyers expressed complete surprise.
Observations of the jury during a trial
Witness Brune testifies about their presence at a trial, their direct view of the jury box, and their specific observations of juror Ms. Conrad's attentiveness and note-taking.
Jury selection responsibilities
An unnamed questioner is examining a witness named Brune about the roles and responsibilities within his firm for jury selection in a particular case, focusing on the duties of Ms. Trzaskoma.
Professional Biography
Website biography describing Brune's ability to make sound strategic choices, meticulous preparation, and forceful advocacy.
Issues during jury selection
Communication regarding issues that came up during jury selection.
Identity of Juror No. 1
Discussion regarding whether Juror No. 1 could be Catherine Conrad, the suspended attorney.
Jury Selection Due Diligence
Questioning regarding why Brune did not inform the court about finding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad during voir dire.
Factual assertions in a case involving Mr. Parse
A brief filed under Brune's signature which she now regrets because the facts were not accurate/complete.
Jury selection process and strategy
Brune is questioned about the goals and methods of jury selection, including finding sympathetic jurors and using a database and Google searches. Brune confirms hiring the Nardello firm and the involvement of Dennis Donahue for this purpose.
Personnel working on the Parma matter
An unnamed questioner asks the witness, Brune, to identify attorneys and non-attorney personnel (paralegals) who were assigned to work on the 'Parma matter'.
Hypothetical discussion about withholding information fro...
The speaker posits a hypothetical 'Plaza conversation' where the Brune firm decides to 'sandbag the Court' by knowingly withholding information to gain an advantage.
The identity and suspension of Catherine Conrad, Juror No. 1
A legal brief is the central topic of discussion. The questioning focuses on whether the brief intentionally created a false impression about the timing of when the author learned about a juror's suspension.
Witness's legal experience and involvement in a case
A transcript of a direct examination where a witness named Brune is questioned about their legal experience, including trials in government and private practice, Grand Jury investigations, and their pride in their law firm. The questioning also clarifies the limited role of an unnamed female colleague in the trial.
Hiring of investigative firms and collaboration with Kram...
Brune is being questioned about their collaboration with the Kramer Levin law firm. The testimony confirms that Kramer Levin hired Julie Blackman and, together with Brune's party, hired the Nardello firm for investigative work. The background of Mr. Nardello as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney is discussed.
Hiring of investigative firms and collaboration with Kram...
Brune is being questioned about their collaboration with the Kramer Levin law firm. The testimony confirms that Kramer Levin hired Julie Blackman and, together with Brune's party, hired the Nardello firm for investigative work. The background of Mr. Nardello as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney is discussed.
Failure to disclose information about Juror No. 1's statu...
An unnamed questioner interrogates the witness, Brune, about why they did not ask Judge Pauley to inquire further into Juror No. 1's background, despite having information suggesting she was a suspended attorney. Brune clarifies the information was from a Google search by Ms. Trzaskoma and not a physical printout, and that they had concluded it was a different person.
Jury selection discussions regarding potential juror Cath...
The document is a transcript of a question-and-answer session where the witness, Brune, describes the process and reasoning behind deciding to strike a potential juror named Catherine Conrad. The decision was influenced by information found by a colleague, Theresa, and advice from a jury consultant.
Information regarding a juror's note and identity
On May 12, Brune had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma about whether a juror who sent a note about legal terms was the same lawyer she had previously located via a Google search.
Unknown legal matter
The witness, Brune, filed a letter on July 21st. The questioning centers on what Brune knew before filing this letter.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity