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-00009346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of Brune) designated A-5742. The testimony concerns procedural events in court, specifically the restarting of jury deliberations due to a juror's illness and the presence of alternate jurors. The witness also discusses the illness of Mr. Rosenbaum and denies withholding an issue from the Court until Rosenbaum fell ill.
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-00009340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune testifies about their knowledge of research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma, stating they became aware of it on May 18th but knew on May 12th that she had found a disciplinary decision on Google. The transcript details a conversation on May 12th between Brune, Ms. Trzaskoma, and Ms. Edelstein that occurred after court near Foley Square.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies about being present for an entire trial, having a clear view of the jury, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being very attentive and taking copious notes. The document is part of case file 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009336.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process for a lengthy, three-month trial. The questioning focuses on the decision not to challenge a potential juror with a criminal history and confirms that juror availability was a significant issue, which Judge Pauley addressed with the jury pool from the beginning.
DOJ-OGR-00009335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically referencing a joint defense agreement among counsel and the collective nature of juror challenges based on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge. The questioning turns to a specific juror, Mr. Aponte, and begins to address whether he had a criminal history before the page cuts off.
DOJ-OGR-00009334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on the jury selection (voir dire) process, specifically what Ms. Brune knew about a prospective juror and whether she shared that information with other defense counsel. Ms. Brune confirms that all defense counsel met with a Dennis Donahue before the jury was selected and explains why she discarded certain information as not relevant to the juror.
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-00009329.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a trial attorney named Brune. Brune discusses the strategy for jury selection, which involved identifying sympathetic jurors and using research tools like a database and Google. Brune confirms hiring the Nardello firm and the involvement of Dennis Donahue to assist with these jury research efforts.
DOJ-OGR-00009328.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (likely related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the case number) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Brune' (likely defense attorney Susan Brune), is testifying about the defense team's jury research process, specifically regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad. Brune admits that the investigative firm Nardello did not search for Conrad and discusses the timing of when the team focused on the juror's middle initial relative to a letter disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009326.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned about her assessment of potentially significant information regarding a juror and whether it should have been raised with a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes legal objections and rulings, indicating a contentious line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009325.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, Ms. Brune (a defense attorney), is being questioned about her failure to inform the Court during jury selection that a Google search revealed a prospective juror (or person with a similar name), Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009324.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. The questioning focuses on why Brune and her team of nearly two dozen people failed to conduct additional research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name matched that of an individual in a New York court opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00009323.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript page where a witness named Brune recounts discussions about a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, during voir dire. A colleague named Theresa discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name, and a jury consultant advised striking Conrad from the jury, arguing that as a recovering alcoholic, she would likely focus more on personal responsibility than the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009322.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding preparations for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline of receiving information, including a juror list, research from the Nardello firm, and a 2010 suspension opinion concerning Catherine M. Conrad. Brune clarifies that the opinion was discussed on the morning of court in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue, rather than definitively before the start of voir dire.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5716) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness, identified as Brune, is being questioned about the legal team's use of technology and personnel during the trial, specifically mentioning Donna Kane from Decision Quest regarding graphics. The testimony confirms that team members Theresa Trzaskoma and Lori Edelstein had laptops and internet/email access in the courtroom during voir dire and jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune clarifies that the jury research conducted by the Nardello firm was strictly limited to database searches per his instructions. He also details the role of Suann Ingle of Ingle Communications, who was part of his team and responsible for creating and presenting graphics for opening and closing statements, some of which were for a Dr. DeRosa.
DOJ-OGR-00009317.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony focuses on the staffing of Brune's legal team, identifying Nancy as a paralegal, Ken Renta as the managing clerk responsible for filings, and Dennis Donahue as a jury consultant hired specifically for the case who was present during voir dire. The document is part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009315.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony details the composition of the legal defense team, identifying specific partners and associates (Edelstein, Hollander, Kim, Stapp) and their respective office locations (San Francisco and New York). It also mentions communications regarding issues during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009314.jpg
This document is a court transcript excerpt from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The testimony focuses on the roles and responsibilities for jury selection within Brune's law firm for a particular case. Brune clarifies that while they were ultimately responsible, a partner named Ms. Trzaskoma was more deeply involved in the details and supervised other lawyers in gathering information on potential jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009312.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's professional philosophy as a "forceful advocate," the factual certainty behind issues they raised in court, and their prior representation of David Parse. Brune defends their conduct, stating they strive for accuracy and only raise issues they believe have merit.
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.
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.
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.
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