SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010120.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on March 24, 2022, capturing the end of a hearing. The judge finalizes deadlines with counsel, Mr. Shechtman and Mr. Okula, setting March 23 for initial briefs and April 5 for responses, before thanking them and adjourning the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00010118.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on March 22, 2022. In it, the judge ('The Court') asks counsel, Mr. Shechtman, for briefing on a hypothetical scenario regarding the appellate rights of both the defendant, Parse, and the government if a new trial were to be granted. Mr. Shechtman clarifies that the key issue is whether the defendant could file an interlocutory appeal before sentencing, which the Court confirms.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
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-00010115.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula poses a hypothetical question about what steps Berke would take if he discovered that a juror, specifically Juror No. 1, was a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Berke refuses to answer the question, stating it is a far-fetched and speculative scenario that he has never experienced.
DOJ-OGR-00010114.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning, likely by an attorney named Mr. Okula, centers on whether Berke made an assessment of potential juror misconduct involving a juror and a suspended attorney with a similar name. Berke repeatedly states an unwillingness to speculate and claims that, based on personal experience, no issue was apparent at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010113.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning centers on whether Berke was aware of, or would have been interested in, a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who had previously been involved in a personal injury lawsuit. Berke avoids answering the hypothetical question directly, stating an unwillingness to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about Juror No. 1, specifically concerning a potential connection to a suspended New York attorney and the juror's past involvement as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Berke denies being told details about the alleged connection but recalls discussing the juror's prior lawsuit.
DOJ-OGR-00010111.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, who is an attorney. Berke explains his cautious approach to his professional obligations, stating he always researches the rules before acting on sensitive information. He affirms that if he believed a juror committed misconduct, he would feel obligated to inform the court after reviewing the relevant laws.
DOJ-OGR-00010110.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a Mr. Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. An unnamed questioner presses Mr. Berke on whether an attorney has an ethical obligation to report juror misconduct to the court. Mr. Berke consistently avoids a direct yes-or-no answer, stating it's a complex ethical and legal question and that his practice is to consult the relevant ethics rules when such issues arise.
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-00010108.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an individual named Berke. Berke testifies about events on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from Juror Catherine Conrad regarding jury instructions. Berke also discusses his professional relationship with another lawyer, Susan Brune, who represented David Parse in the same case, and recalls speaking with her about the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010107.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 21, 2022, featuring the direct examination of attorney Barry H. Berke by Mr. Shechtman. Berke testifies about his employment history at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel and the Federal Defenders office, and confirms he was a lawyer present in the courtroom during the trial of David Parse. The document bears a DOJ-OGR bates stamp, suggesting it was released as part of a Department of Justice records request.
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-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
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-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-00010098.jpg
This court transcript page from February 22, 2022, documents the admission of 'Government Exhibit 10' into evidence without objection from any of the present counsel. Immediately following, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins presenting his case by calling his first witness, Paul Schoeman, who is then sworn in and identifies himself to the court.
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-00010094.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.
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-00010091.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit information from a legal brief. Edelstein admits they decided not to include information about a juror note and a suspended lawyer. He expresses regret over this decision, stating that in hindsight they should have included a footnote to avoid creating a misimpression.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity