SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The dialogue involves 'The Court' and attorney Mr. Shechtman discussing the conduct of lawyers named Brune and Richard. The debate centers on whether the lawyers' 'lack of candor' was due to carelessness or a strategic decision to 'game the system' and conceal information from the court.
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-00009483.jpg
This document is a court transcript page where a speaker, identified as CAC3PARC, is addressing a judge ('Your Honor'). The speaker analyzes the actions of an unnamed woman who, along with her two senior colleagues, failed to report critical information to the court during a trial, an act the speaker and judge agree was a 'tragic misjudgment'. The speaker argues that an investigation should have occurred or the court should have been immediately notified, but instead, the issue was dismissed and a new juror was later substituted without anyone connecting the events.
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-00009480.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the Ghislaine Maxwell case). However, the content of the transcript records proceedings for 'United States of America v. David Parse,' where attorney Paul Shechtman argues for a new trial based on 'ineffective assistance of counsel.' This transcript was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent or an exhibit regarding standards for new trials.
DOJ-OGR-00009442.jpg
This document is an index from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the examination of four witnesses: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke. The index provides the starting page numbers for the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations conducted by attorneys Ms. Davis, Mr. Shechtman, and Mr. Okula.
DOJ-OGR-00009438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing. Both the defense attorneys for defendants Parse and Field, as well as the government attorney, rest their cases. The judge then instructs the parties to submit post-hearing briefs, specifically requesting they address the strongest evidence from the hearing and a key ethical question regarding the potential failure of attorneys for 'Brune & Richard' to disclose a July 21 letter and an investigation concerning Juror No. 1.
DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula questions Berke about a hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, serving as Juror No. 1. Berke repeatedly refuses to answer, calling the scenario 'far-fetched' and an attempt to make him speculate on an experience he's never had.
DOJ-OGR-00009435.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding potential juror misconduct. The questioning focuses on whether more information would be useful to assess a connection between a juror and a suspended attorney with the same name, but the witness repeatedly refuses to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between "Juror No. 1" and Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer who was also involved in a personal injury lawsuit and allegedly shared the same address as the juror. Berke states they knew of the juror's lawsuit from voir dire but did not believe the juror was the same person as the disbarred lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended New York attorney.' Berke denies being told specific details but recalls a conversation where it was noted that the juror had previously been a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
DOJ-OGR-00009432.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of an individual named Berke, filed on February 24, 2022. Berke, an attorney, is questioned about their professional obligations upon learning of potential juror misconduct. Berke affirms a belief in the obligation to report such information to the court, but emphasizes they would first thoroughly research the applicable rules and laws to ensure full compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00009431.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning focuses on legal ethics, specifically asking Berke if an attorney is obligated to report juror misconduct to the Court. Berke attempts to qualify his answer rather than giving a simple 'yes' or 'no,' stating he relies on ethical rules and commentary when such issues arise.
DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00009428.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the direct examination of witness Barry H. Berke. Mr. Berke, a partner at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, outlines his legal career, including his time as a judicial clerk, a lawyer with the Federal Defenders, and a professor at NYU. He also confirms his prior involvement as a lawyer in a trial concerning the defendant, David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2012, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, questions Mr. Schoeman about a conversation on or after May 13th, in which Ms. Trzaskoma told him she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. The witness confirms the conversation but states he had no specific understanding of her reasoning, attributing the information sharing to their established pattern during the lengthy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney named Schoeman. The questioning centers on what Schoeman knew about allegations that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended attorney, referencing a potential Westlaw report and an internal firm email he claims not to have seen. Schoeman maintains he was unaware of the specific information and only took action by asking about the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman, filed on February 24, 2012. The questioning centers on why Schoeman did not conduct a more thorough follow-up investigation into a concern raised by Ms. Trzaskoma about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended attorney.' Schoeman states that the basis for the concern was simply that they shared the same name, and the issue was dismissed after reviewing voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009423.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2012. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding the timing of a conversation Schoeman had with a Ms. Trzaskoma. The questioning aims to establish whether this conversation occurred on the same day or several days after a juror's note was received in court during deliberations.
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-00009421.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where the witness, Schoeman, is being questioned about his relationship with a lawyer named Theresa Trzaskoma. Schoeman explains that he met her around the year 2000 and they became family friends, and that he also had a prior professional connection to her husband from the law firm Paul Weiss. The witness confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma was a lawyer for David Parse during a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of attorney Mr. Schoeman. The testimony focuses on establishing Schoeman's background and his involvement in a previous trial (United States v. Parse et al.) regarding a specific incident on May 11, 2011, involving a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad. This testimony is likely being used to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009419.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. In the proceeding, the Government (represented by Mr. Okula) rests its case after admitting Exhibit 10 into evidence. Subsequently, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins the defense case for 'Defendant Parse' by calling Paul Schoeman as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity