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-00009311.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on establishing the nature of the lawyer-client relationship between Brune and his client, David Parse, confirming that Parse trusted Brune and his firm to make strategic decisions and that Brune had a good working relationship with him.
DOJ-OGR-00009310.jpg
This document is page 249 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune, an attorney, regarding the marketing and claims made on the website of their law firm, Brune & Richard. The questioning focuses on Brune's self-description regarding 'sound strategic choices,' 'meticulous preparation,' and 'forceful advocacy.'
DOJ-OGR-00009309.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune clarifies that a female colleague had a limited role in a past trial, assisting with the closing statement but not being part of the trial team. He also discusses his own legal experience, including conducting many Grand Jury investigations and his pride in his law firm.
DOJ-OGR-00009308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers Brune's professional background, specifically leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York in November 1997 to start the law firm Brune & Richard with Hillary Richard in February 1998. The witness confirms that while Hillary Richard has done criminal cases, she is primarily a civil lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009279.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as Exhibit A-5675 in the 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 24, 2022. The index lists names and terms appearing in the transcript, including significant mentions of 'Benhamou' (38 times), 'Brune' (48 times), 'Bronx' (43 times), and 'Bronxville' (47 times), along with their specific page and line citations.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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