SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on a past conversation between Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1,' specifically investigating whether the juror was actually a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' for a lawyer to lie under oath about their identity and denies that a Westlaw report was mentioned during their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00010020.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 4, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune describes a conversation with colleagues Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein (Theresa) while walking to 52 Duane, concerning suspicions that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. They discuss the juror's background revealed during voir dire, specifically a personal injury suit in the Bronx, and the juror's use of legal concepts like 'vicarious liability' and 'respondeat superior' which the witness notes are out of place in a criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00010017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies that they had no concerns about the behavior of a particular juror and recounts the circumstances surrounding a note sent by Juror No. 1 on May 10th. The witness recalls that Judge Pauley disclosed the note to the court only after summations were complete, believing it would have been unfair to do so in the middle of them.
DOJ-OGR-00010016.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms being present for every day of a trial, having a direct view of the jury box, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being attentive and taking a lot of notes.
DOJ-OGR-00010014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-03388-LAK) featuring the direct examination of an individual named Brune. The testimony focuses on the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically discussing a joint defense agreement and the reliance on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge when challenging potential jurors. The witness is also asked if they recall a 'Mr. Aponte' and a juror with a criminal background.
DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's recollection of the jury selection process, specifically an incident involving 'Juror No. 20' who wore an FBI turtleneck to court and whose mother worked for the FBI. The questioning also probes Brune's awareness at the time that a juror might have been a suspended attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00010009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune, who appears to be associated with the defense counsel, is questioned about their understanding of the voir dire process, confirming that while the judge leads the questioning of potential jurors, the defense could propose questions and request inquiries into new areas, but the final decision to ask any question rested with the Court.
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-00010007.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 24, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the due diligence performed during jury selection (voir dire), specifically admitting that the witness did not launch a full-scale private investigation into every juror and confirming that the investigative entity 'Nardello' did not search for juror Catherine M. Conrad of Bronxville. The witness also discusses the timing of when the government disclosed a letter sent by the juror.
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-00010005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on whether she understood certain information about a potential juror to be significant, particularly to a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes objections from attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman, and rulings from the presiding judge.
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-00010003.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00010002.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness named Brune is being questioned about jury selection. Brune recounts how a colleague, Theresa, found a suspended lawyer on Google with the same name as a potential juror, Catherine Conrad. Brune then describes a strategic discussion with a jury consultant who advised striking Conrad from the jury, fearing she would be overly focused on personal responsibility rather than the government's burden of proof.
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-00010000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations, specifically regarding information she discussed with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, 2011, concerning Juror No. 1. The discussion revolved around a note the juror had sent about legal terms and whether that juror was a lawyer Trzaskoma had previously found via a Google search.
DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.
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-00009995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, filed on March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness identifies attorneys (Melissa Desori, Ms. Edelstein, David Elbaum) and paralegals (Brendan Henry, Jenson Smith, Ariel Stoddard) who worked on a case referred to as the 'Parma matter'. The testimony clarifies the roles of these individuals, such as working on legal issues or expert testimony involving a Dr. DeRosa.
DOJ-OGR-00009993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune is being questioned about his law firm's process for jury selection, confirming that his partner, Ms. Trzaskoma (also called Theresa), was heavily involved in the details of gathering information on jurors, while he maintained ultimate responsibility and a supervisory role. The effort was collaborative, also involving two lawyers from San Francisco.
DOJ-OGR-00009992.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving an attorney named Brune. Brune testifies to representing a male client since 2004, expressing a strong personal connection, care for the client, and a belief in his innocence regarding a criminal case. The testimony also establishes Brune's leadership role as a named partner at the law firm Brune & Richard.
DOJ-OGR-00009991.jpg
This page contains court testimony from a witness named Brune regarding the ethics of legal defense. Brune discusses the concept of 'forceful advocacy' and denies raising issues with the Court without believing they had merit. The examination concludes with a transition to questions regarding a former client named David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009988.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's legal background, including experience with trials as both a government and private counsel, and conducting Grand Jury investigations. Brune also confirms their personal investment in and pride for their law firm.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity