Barry Berke
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Schoeman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Schoeman
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | The trial of David Farse and other defendants. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010167.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.
DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankl. Mr. Schoeman details his professional history, including his firm's representation of Raymond Craig Brubaker in a prior trial alongside his partner, Barry Berke. The questioning then focuses on a specific event on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad.
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-00009427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2012, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, questions Mr. Schoeman about a conversation on or after May 13th, in which Ms. Trzaskoma told him she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. The witness confirms the conversation but states he had no specific understanding of her reasoning, attributing the information sharing to their established pattern during the lengthy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of attorney Mr. Schoeman. The testimony focuses on establishing Schoeman's background and his involvement in a previous trial (United States v. Parse et al.) regarding a specific incident on May 11, 2011, involving a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad. This testimony is likely being used to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity