Ms. Brune
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. DAVIS
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
her team
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. DAVIS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Examiner witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Female Partner
|
Professional supervisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Investigative subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Parse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Q
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her knowledge and actions during the voir dire process. | Court (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire, the process of jury selection, is discussed. | Court (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The writing of a legal brief by Edelstein and Ms. Brune. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis, during which Government Exhibit 28 (a letter from... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal strategy discussion | A discussion between Edelstein and Ms. Brune about what information to include or omit in a legal... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Decision making | Edelstein and Ms. Brune specifically decided what information to include or exclude from a legal ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Telephone call | Ms. Brune, her firm, or defendant Parse acknowledged being differently situated than other defend... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Discussion between the speaker, Ms. Edelstein, and Ms. Brune regarding Catherine Conrad and a Wes... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding (voir dire) | The jury selection process for a trial that was expected to be very long. A key issue was the ava... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding (trial) | A three-month long trial for which the jury selection discussed in the document was conducted. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her failure to report a 'significant piece of informati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony | Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her handling of a 'significant piece of information' an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Ms. Brune testifies under oath, answering questions about her process for vetting jurors using ex... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony (direct examination) | Ms. Brune is questioned about her ethical standards and actions as a former Assistant U.S. Attorn... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation at the plaza | The Plaza | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Ms. Brune regarding previous statements and filings. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune regarding Government Exhibit 28. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery of material facts mentioned in line 25. | Unknown | View |
| 2025-12-05 | N/A | Date referenced in testimony regarding choices made | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-03 | N/A | Date witness found information regarding a juror | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-05 | Meeting | A conversation took place regarding a suspended lawyer having the same name as a juror. | the plaza | View |
| 2022-08-24 | N/A | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune regarding legal disclosures and ethics. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-05-12 | Meeting | A conversation on the plaza regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. | the plaza | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where one witness (Ms. Brune) is excused and another (Laura Joy Edelstein) is cal... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, featuring Ms. Trzaskoma's testimony during redirect and recross-examination. The questioning primarily concerns information about juror Catherine Conrad, specifically when Ms. Trzaskoma became aware of Conrad's background as a suspended lawyer with a criminal record and civil lawsuit, and whether this information was properly disclosed during the trial. The Court also inquires about a juror replacement event on May 16th during deliberations, and Ms. Trzaskoma denies any intent to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on why Berke did not further investigate a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, with Berke stating it was concluded they were different people based on the voir dire. After the examination, the witness is excused, and the court asks if the defense, representing a defendant named Parse, has any more witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00010109.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 369) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. The text captures the end of a direct examination by Mr. Shechtman, where Berke recounts a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a mistaken identity involving a disbarred lawyer. The document then transitions to cross-examination by Mr. Okula, who makes a remark about checking the cross-examination off his 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00010096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 22, 2022. In it, a judge questions a witness about their law firm's obligation to disclose information, referencing a July 21 letter. The questioning also covers the court's decision to replace Juror No. 11 during deliberations and whether the witness considered raising a separate issue concerning Juror No. 1, which had been previously discussed with a Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00010095.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 20, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein. The Court questions the witness about a July 21 letter sent to the court, asking if her law firm would have voluntarily disclosed information about an investigation into 'Juror No. 1' without being prompted. The witness begins to affirm that they expected the information to eventually be revealed.
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Edelstein, by an attorney, Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses on why Ms. Edelstein and her colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, did not inform the court after discovering that a juror, Juror No. 1, shared the same name as a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad. Ms. Edelstein testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' they were the same person and therefore saw no reason to bring it to the court's attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010090.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the drafting of a legal brief. Edelstein testifies about a discussion with a colleague, Ms. Brune, regarding whether to disclose their prior knowledge of a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. The testimony centers on their intent and state of mind at the time, stating they were not focused on the legal concept of 'waiver' but rather on establishing facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010085.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about a brief they co-authored. The questioning focuses on whether the brief was intentionally written to mislead the reader about when Edelstein learned of Juror Catherine Conrad's suspension as a lawyer, particularly in relation to receiving a letter from the government. Edelstein admits the brief could be misread but denies any malicious intent, a claim the questioner challenges by referencing a specific decision made with a colleague, Ms. Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010058.jpg
This document is page 318 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00438-DAO) filed on August 24, 2022. It features testimony from Ms. Brune under redirect examination by Ms. Davis, discussing legal ethics regarding whether an attorney should raise non-meritorious arguments if the government omits them. Ms. Brune asserts she would disclose facts or arguments if put in issue by the Court or government.
DOJ-OGR-00010048.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of Ms. Brune. She explains that a legal brief her firm wrote "missed the issue" because they were focused on other aspects of the case and lacked certain information, which she regrets. Ms. Brune also confirms that she believed the jury's verdict to acquit David Parse on four of six charges was fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00010042.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). The questioning centers on her ethical duty to present facts accurately to the court and government, particularly concerning a "waiver issue" she admits to having missed in a brief. Ms. Brune defends her actions by explaining she believed the government had superior information and she was prepared to respond accurately if they chose to raise the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Ms. Brune (likely an attorney). She is being questioned about a discrepancy between facts presented in a July 21st letter and a legal brief, and a subsequent conference call with Judge Pauley on July 22nd where the Judge expressed unhappiness with the conflicting information. Brune expresses regret for 'missing' something in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010035.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on the ethical obligations of a female partner at Brune's law firm, establishing that she has independent obligations to the Court despite Brune's supervisory role. The testimony also references the review of email traffic leading up to the submission of a letter on July 21st.
DOJ-OGR-00010024.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript where a witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned about why she did not report a 'significant piece of information' to the court's chambers. The questioning establishes that she had ample resources to do so, including a team, an investigative firm, a telephone, and a BlackBerry with email access. Ms. Brune defends her inaction by stating she did not believe the information was accurate at the time, while also affirming her team was diligent and would have followed her instructions to investigate further.
DOJ-OGR-00010006.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. She explains that her team had gathered 'Google-type information' on potential jurors but she chose to credit the jurors' in-court 'voir dire' responses. Ms. Brune admits she understood she could have asked Judge Pauley to inquire further about specific jurors based on this external information but did not do so.
DOJ-OGR-00010004.jpg
This page is a court transcript excerpt featuring the cross-examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her failure to inform the Court about a Google search revealing a prospective juror, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits the information was significant but confirms she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time. The document is filed under case 1:20-cv-08130.
DOJ-OGR-00009916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The witness, Ms. Trzaskoma, is being questioned regarding her knowledge of misconduct by Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad), specifically regarding a Westlaw report identifying Conrad as a suspended lawyer. Trzaskoma testifies that she believed the report was a case of mistaken identity and denies trying to 'sandbag' the court by withholding information about Conrad's criminal history and suspended license during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00009417.jpg
This court transcript details the questioning of a witness by the judge regarding a potential issue with Juror No. 1. The judge asks why the witness did not raise this issue, which they had discussed with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma on May 12, at the time when another juror, Juror No. 11, was replaced due to a health emergency. The witness responds that it did not occur to them to raise the issue at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein. The testimony concerns the drafting of a legal brief and whether the legal team knowingly omitted information regarding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad prior to voir dire (jury selection). The witness explains their focus was on establishing identity rather than waiving rights regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009398.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by a witness named Edelstein. He recounts receiving a 'surprising and shocking' letter from a juror, which he found disturbing due to its odd tone. Edelstein discusses his process of connecting the contents of this letter with information previously provided by Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, and his subsequent conversation about the letter with his partner, Randy Kim.
DOJ-OGR-00009383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 322) filed on February 24, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Brune and the commencement of testimony by a new government witness, attorney Laurie Edelstein. During direct examination, Mr. Okula asks Ms. Edelstein a hypothetical question regarding a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct to the Court.
Identity confusion regarding a disbarred lawyer
Discussion about a note and confirming that a person was not a disbarred lawyer but had a BA in humanities.
Information previously found out
Ms. Brune had conversations with defense counsel after receiving Ms. Conrad's letter. She describes these as 'joint defense communications'.
Drafting of brief / Catherine Conrad
Discussion regarding whether to mention prior knowledge of Catherine Conrad before voir dire.
Identity verification/Background check
Discussion regarding a person identified as a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the subject; concluded it was not the same person due to educational background.
Jury selection (voir dire) process
An unnamed questioner is examining Ms. Brune about the jury selection for a long trial. Topics include the decision not to challenge a juror with a criminal record and the importance of juror availability, which was a major issue addressed by Judge Pauley.
Identity of Juror No. 1
A conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Brune where Ms. Trzaskoma wondered if Juror No. 1 could be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Ms. Brune testifies that they concluded it made no sense and that Ms. Trzaskoma did not mention a Westlaw report.
No Subject
Ms. Brune confirms she had a telephone with her.
Potential communication about significant information
Ms. Brune confirms she had a BlackBerry with immediate e-mail access and could have communicated with the court's chambers.
No Subject
The questioner confirms that Ms. Brune had a telephone with her.
Potential communication about significant information
The witness, Ms. Brune, confirms she had a BlackBerry with immediate e-mail access and could have communicated with chambers.
Ethical standards and disclosure of facts by an Assistant...
An unnamed questioner examines Ms. Brune about her ethical obligations as a former AUSA, specifically regarding her decision not to proactively disclose certain facts in a brief unless pressed by the court or the government.
Jury Selection / Information
Discussion regarding jury selection details; questioner asks if Trzaskoma had an 'oh, Jesus' moment; Brune recalls telling her to 'leave it' or words to that effect.
Government Exhibit 28
A letter from Ms. Brune to the Court, dated July 21st, which is being entered into evidence as Government Exhibit 28.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity