Brune firm
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The voir dire process, during which the Brune firm may have made a strategic judgment. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-12 | Legal decision | A 'fateful' day on which the Brune firm is said to have made a strategic judgment, possibly durin... | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-12 | Legal proceeding | A 'fateful day' on which the Brune firm is alleged to have made a strategic judgment. | N/A | 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-00010160.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.
DOJ-OGR-00010155.jpg
This document is an affidavit filed by David Parse on August 7, 2012, in the criminal case *USA v. Daugerdas et al.* (Case 1:09-cr-00581). In the affidavit, Parse attests that during jury selection, he heard attorney Theresa Trzaskoma mention a juror had the same name as a suspended attorney but dismissed it as a coincidence. Parse states he only learned later (after a motion for a new trial was filed) that the issue of the juror ('Conrad') actually being the suspended lawyer had surfaced prior to deliberations. Note: While this document bears a DOJ-OGR stamp often associated with Epstein-related releases, the text strictly concerns the Daugerdas tax fraud case and juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript concerning the direct examination of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1' (Ms. Conrad). They discussed whether the juror might be a disbarred lawyer with the same name, but concluded she was not based on her educational background revealed during voir dire.
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-00009487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. An attorney is arguing before the judge regarding the conduct of the 'Brune firm,' suggesting they 'dropped the ball' regarding a revelation about someone with the 'same name' rather than engaging in a deliberate strategy. The speaker notes that this error might result in a 'very long trial' having to be done again, implying a discussion about a mistrial or retrial motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009481.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022. An unidentified speaker is arguing about whether the actions of the 'Brune firm' on May 12, 2011, constituted a deliberate 'strategic judgment' or were simply 'inattention or neglect.' The speaker references legal definitions and precedents from Justice Stevens, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court to support their argument.
DOJ-OGR-00009476.jpg
This is an affidavit from David Parse, a defendant in case S3 09 Cr. 581 in the Southern District of New York, filed on August 7, 2012. Parse states that he only became aware of a potential issue regarding a juror named Conrad being a suspended lawyer after his legal team, the Brune firm, had already filed a motion for a new trial. He specifies learning this information after a conference call on July 15, 2011, and recalls his lawyer, Theresa Trzaskoma, had previously dismissed a concern about a prospective juror having the same name during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009422.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness by Mr. Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square, concerning Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad). They discussed a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the juror but concluded it was a different person because the juror's educational background did not include law school.
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'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity