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-00010025.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition or court transcript, featuring a direct examination by 'Brune' of a speaker identified as 'C2GFDAU1'. The discussion revolves around a past court event where a judge had to restart jury deliberations due to a juror's illness, which coincided with Mr. Rosenbaum having to leave. The witness explains why they did not raise a particular issue with the Court at an earlier time.
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-00010016.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms being present for every day of a trial, having a direct view of the jury box, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being attentive and taking a lot of notes.
DOJ-OGR-00010014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-03388-LAK) featuring the direct examination of an individual named Brune. The testimony focuses on the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically discussing a joint defense agreement and the reliance on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge when challenging potential jurors. The witness is also asked if they recall a 'Mr. Aponte' and a juror with a criminal background.
DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's recollection of the jury selection process, specifically an incident involving 'Juror No. 20' who wore an FBI turtleneck to court and whose mother worked for the FBI. The questioning also probes Brune's awareness at the time that a juror might have been a suspended attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00010009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune, who appears to be associated with the defense counsel, is questioned about their understanding of the voir dire process, confirming that while the judge leads the questioning of potential jurors, the defense could propose questions and request inquiries into new areas, but the final decision to ask any question rested with the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010008.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 268, Exhibit A-5725) filed on August 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding strategies used during jury selection (voir dire). Brune confirms utilizing Google, a database, the Nardello firm, and Dennis Donahue to research potential jurors to find those sympathetic to defense themes.
DOJ-OGR-00010007.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 24, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the due diligence performed during jury selection (voir dire), specifically admitting that the witness did not launch a full-scale private investigation into every juror and confirming that the investigative entity 'Nardello' did not search for juror Catherine M. Conrad of Bronxville. The witness also discusses the timing of when the government disclosed a letter sent by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on whether she understood certain information about a potential juror to be significant, particularly to a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes objections from attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman, and rulings from the presiding judge.
DOJ-OGR-00010003.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00010002.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness named Brune is being questioned about jury selection. Brune recounts how a colleague, Theresa, found a suspended lawyer on Google with the same name as a potential juror, Catherine Conrad. Brune then describes a strategic discussion with a jury consultant who advised striking Conrad from the jury, fearing she would be overly focused on personal responsibility rather than the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00010001.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding their legal team's preparation for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline and handling of key documents, including a juror list, questionnaires, research from the Nardello firm, and a specific '2010 suspension opinion' concerning Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms the opinion was discussed in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue before or during the voir dire process.
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-00009999.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00009998.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on March 23, 2022. Brune testifies about juror research conducted by the Nardello firm, clarifying it was strictly limited to database research and did not involve fieldwork. Brune also outlines the role of team member Suann Ingle, who was responsible for creating and presenting trial graphics.
DOJ-OGR-00009997.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where a witness named Brune is being questioned. The testimony focuses on the collaborative relationship with the law firm Kramer Levin and the joint hiring of the Nardello firm for investigative work. The background of Mr. Nardello as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and his firm's motto, "We find out," are also discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00009995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, filed on March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness identifies attorneys (Melissa Desori, Ms. Edelstein, David Elbaum) and paralegals (Brendan Henry, Jenson Smith, Ariel Stoddard) who worked on a case referred to as the 'Parma matter'. The testimony clarifies the roles of these individuals, such as working on legal issues or expert testimony involving a Dr. DeRosa.
DOJ-OGR-00009993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune is being questioned about his law firm's process for jury selection, confirming that his partner, Ms. Trzaskoma (also called Theresa), was heavily involved in the details of gathering information on jurors, while he maintained ultimate responsibility and a supervisory role. The effort was collaborative, also involving two lawyers from San Francisco.
DOJ-OGR-00009992.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving an attorney named Brune. Brune testifies to representing a male client since 2004, expressing a strong personal connection, care for the client, and a belief in his innocence regarding a criminal case. The testimony also establishes Brune's leadership role as a named partner at the law firm Brune & Richard.
DOJ-OGR-00009991.jpg
This page contains court testimony from a witness named Brune regarding the ethics of legal defense. Brune discusses the concept of 'forceful advocacy' and denies raising issues with the Court without believing they had merit. The examination concludes with a transition to questions regarding a former client named David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009988.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's legal background, including experience with trials as both a government and private counsel, and conducting Grand Jury investigations. Brune also confirms their personal investment in and pride for their law firm.
DOJ-OGR-00009987.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune confirms having worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, leaving in November 1997 to start the law firm 'Brune & Richard' with Hillary Richard on February 2, 1998. Brune also clarifies that their partner, Hillary Richard, is primarily a civil lawyer.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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