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-00009373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00009369.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 308) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned by Mr. Davis about a mistake in a legal brief regarding the timing of a Google search relative to receiving a letter. The testimony also confirms that David Parse was convicted of two charges and acquitted of four, and that the witness believed the jury rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009363.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune. Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, is questioned about her ethical standards regarding the disclosure of facts to the court and the government. She defends her past actions by stating she did not believe it was her obligation to raise the opposing side's points and assumed the government had access to the same, if not more, information.
DOJ-OGR-00009361.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Ms. Brune, the deponent, discusses legal standards regarding juror misconduct, referencing 'McDonough' cases and a 'New York ethical rule'. She clarifies her firm's lack of 'actual knowledge' of misconduct and acknowledges a July 22nd telephone call where she, her firm, or defendant Parse was deemed 'differently situated' from other defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00009358.jpg
This document is page 297 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Davis. The questioning focuses on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a 'suspension opinion' and a 'Westlaw report' that came to light before voir dire. Mr. Davis is pressing the witness to confirm that a Westlaw report was attached to a letter submitted to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009356.jpg
This is page 295 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Ms. Brune (likely Susan Brune, a defense attorney), is being questioned about a female partner in her law firm regarding ethical obligations and the review of a final brief. Brune confirms reviewing 'email traffic' leading up to the submission of a 'July 21st letter' to ensure material information was conveyed to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg
Transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) proceedings, specifically the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding the vetting of Juror 'Conrad'. Ms. Brune testifies about the distinction between a 'database search' and a full 'investigation' conducted by her team (including Benhamou, Kim, and Stapp) on May 12th. The testimony highlights a disconnect in the legal team's knowledge, admitting that Ms. Trzaskoma knew about specific email traffic that Ms. Brune was unaware of when she filed a brief stating there was no basis to question the juror's honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009354.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief drafted by Ms. Trzaskoma and signed/approved by Brune, which allegedly omitted the fact that the defense had accessed a 'suspension opinion' during the trial. Brune admits to regretting the oversight but argues the investigation mentioned in the brief was genuinely prompted by a letter from Ms. Conrad, disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 286) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of Ms. Brune (likely a defense attorney), who is being questioned about her failure to bring Google search results regarding a juror to the Court's attention during or after voir dire. Brune defends her actions by stating she believed the information she found referred to a different person than the juror, based on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife' rather than an attorney. Brune also affirms her obligation to the Court remains the same as when she was an Assistant US Attorney (AUSA).
DOJ-OGR-00009345.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned about her failure to report a 'significant piece of information' to the Court's chambers. The questioner establishes that Ms. Brune had the resources, including an investigative team and a BlackBerry for immediate communication, to act on the information. Ms. Brune states she didn't believe the information was accurate at the time but confirms her team was diligent and would have followed any instructions she gave them.
DOJ-OGR-00009344.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony covers the credibility of government witnesses (lawyers who pleaded guilty to false statements to the IRS), the division of labor regarding jury selection between Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma, and a specific conversation they had at 'the plaza' regarding potential information.
DOJ-OGR-00009343.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony centers on Ms. Brune's reasoning for not further investigating an individual (referred to as 'she') who might have been a suspended lawyer, citing reliance on sworn voir dire responses. The questioning attorney challenges this by pointing out that the indictment itself focused on the misconduct of lawyers and that several codefendants were lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00009327.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about her jury selection process, specifically regarding why she did not ask Judge Pauley to clarify discrepancies found in "Google-type information" about jurors. Ms. Brune admits she was aware she could have requested the judge to inquire further but chose not to.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Drafting of brief / Catherine Conrad
Discussion regarding whether to mention prior knowledge of Catherine Conrad before voir dire.
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