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-00009958.jpg
This document is page A-5675 of an index from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, related to the court case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' (Case 2:09-cr-00582-ABN). The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'backdating' to 'came' and provides the page and line number references from the full transcript. The document was filed with the court on March 24, 2012.
DOJ-OGR-00009914.jpg
This document is page xi of a table of contents for a legal filing dated August 3, 2022. It lists various exhibits, transcripts, and legal documents related to a case, including affidavits, emails, jury selection materials, and transcripts from hearings and a conference that took place in 2011 and 2012. The entries reference several individuals, such as Brune, Viviann Stapp, Daniel Nardello, and Steven Gillers, and detail communications and legal proceedings pertinent to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The dialogue involves 'The Court' and attorney Mr. Shechtman discussing the conduct of lawyers named Brune and Richard. The debate centers on whether the lawyers' 'lack of candor' was due to carelessness or a strategic decision to 'game the system' and conceal information from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
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-00009382.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Okula, addresses the judge. He clarifies his team's actions after receiving a note, explaining they did not conduct an independent investigation because they deemed it innocuous and assumed the government was performing its own research. Mr. Okula states that he only learned the government had not done this research upon seeing a motion filed by the defendants.
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-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-00009376.jpg
This document is a transcript of a redirect examination in a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is questioned about why they did not investigate an individual further, despite a Westlaw report indicating she was a suspended attorney. The witness explains their belief that the report had conflated two different people with the same name, and they were convinced the person in question was a 'Bronxville stay-at-home wife' and not the lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009375.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a document that contains addresses in the Bronx and Bronxville, lists of lawsuits, and a household description. The key point of the exchange is the identification of Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' within that household and corroborating this identification with prior email traffic from a Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a redirect examination by an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report concerning a person named Catherine M. Conrad, verifying her name, birth year (1969), and age (41) against a jury list provided before voir dire. Attorneys Gair and Shechtman raise objections during the questioning.
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-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009368.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune denies meeting with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein specifically to prepare for the hearing but confirms they collaborated extensively on a July 21st letter to accurately reconstruct events. The questioning focuses on the extent of their communication and preparation regarding the issues before the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is testifying about a July 22nd phone call with the Judge regarding the identification of jury consultants, specifically mentioning Mr. Donohue, Julie Blackman, and Mr. Schoeman. The testimony clarifies that Mr. Nardello performed investigative work but was not a jury consultant.
DOJ-OGR-00009362.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune explains the reasoning behind filing a legal brief, noting that other lawyers on the case were surprised by their findings. The questioning focuses on a July 22nd phone call and Brune's anticipation that the government would raise a "waiver issue," for which Brune planned to answer truthfully.
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's knowledge regarding a July 15th conference call and a July 21st letter, specifically probing whether Brune knew that statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during the call were incorrect. Brune denies having this knowledge and explains she read the transcript to understand a directive from Judge Pauley.
DOJ-OGR-00009353.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5749) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune (likely an attorney), who admits to regretting a legal brief she filed under her signature which contained inaccurate or incomplete facts. She discusses the legal strategy at the time involving 'Mr. Parse' and references the 'Martha Stewart' case as a comparison for avoiding dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness named Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about communications she had with defense counsel after receiving a copy of a letter from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Brune states these were 'joint defense communications' and recounts becoming upset by a jury note, after which her colleague, Ms. Edelstein, verified a phone number from the letter on the Bar website.
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-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
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