Nardello firm
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Brune
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Kramer Levin
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Hiring | The Nardello firm was hired by Kramer Levin and the party represented by Brune. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal preparation | The witness's firm received a juror list, questionnaires, and research from the Nardello firm in ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror research | A paralegal team and the Nardello firm conducted database research on potential jurors, with stri... | office | View |
| N/A | Jury research | A team conducted computer database research on potential jurors for a case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigative work on Juror No. 1 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection / Voir Dire preparation | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 22, 2022. In it, an attorney argues to a judge that an opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice to "sandbag" the court, but rather a result of incompetence, described as being "careless" and "inept." The speaker references a standard from the Second Circuit and the judge's own prior findings to argue that the other counsel "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00010045.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 305) filed on May 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned about the disclosure of a private investigation firm, Nardello, in a legal brief and during a conference call with Judge Pauley. The testimony confirms that the Nardello firm performed jury research and investigative work pertaining to 'Juror No. 1' after a specific letter was received.
DOJ-OGR-00010008.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 268, Exhibit A-5725) filed on August 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding strategies used during jury selection (voir dire). Brune confirms utilizing Google, a database, the Nardello firm, and Dennis Donahue to research potential jurors to find those sympathetic to defense themes.
DOJ-OGR-00010001.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding their legal team's preparation for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline and handling of key documents, including a juror list, questionnaires, research from the Nardello firm, and a specific '2010 suspension opinion' concerning Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms the opinion was discussed in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue before or during the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00009998.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on March 23, 2022. Brune testifies about juror research conducted by the Nardello firm, clarifying it was strictly limited to database research and did not involve fieldwork. Brune also outlines the role of team member Suann Ingle, who was responsible for creating and presenting trial graphics.
DOJ-OGR-00009997.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where a witness named Brune is being questioned. The testimony focuses on the collaborative relationship with the law firm Kramer Levin and the joint hiring of the Nardello firm for investigative work. The background of Mr. Nardello as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and his firm's motto, "We find out," are also discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00009484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney argues before a judge. The attorney contends that the opposing counsel's failure to properly investigate a witness was not a strategic tactic ('sandbagging') but rather incompetence, carelessness, and an oversight, quoting the Second Circuit's language. The speaker believes this failure to act constitutes prejudice and that the opposing side "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, who is questioned about their firm's decision not to investigate potential juror misconduct by Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad, following a verdict on May 24th. Brune states that the firm did not believe there was an issue to investigate at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00009329.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a trial attorney named Brune. Brune discusses the strategy for jury selection, which involved identifying sympathetic jurors and using research tools like a database and Google. Brune confirms hiring the Nardello firm and the involvement of Dennis Donahue to assist with these jury research efforts.
DOJ-OGR-00009322.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding preparations for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline of receiving information, including a juror list, research from the Nardello firm, and a 2010 suspension opinion concerning Catherine M. Conrad. Brune clarifies that the opinion was discussed on the morning of court in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue, rather than definitively before the start of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune clarifies that the jury research conducted by the Nardello firm was strictly limited to database searches per his instructions. He also details the role of Suann Ingle of Ingle Communications, who was part of his team and responsible for creating and presenting graphics for opening and closing statements, some of which were for a Dr. DeRosa.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity