SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their knowledge of another person's (Ms. Trzaskoma) suspicion. The core issue is whether Ms. Trzaskoma believed there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name, and whether the witness ever asked for the evidence underlying this suspicion. The witness states they did not ask for underlying documents or information.
DOJ-OGR-00009384.jpg
This document is a legal transcript of testimony given by Ms. Edelstein. She is questioned about whether her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her on May 12 about potential misconduct by Juror No. 1. Ms. Edelstein denies being told that Trzaskoma believed the juror was a suspended New York attorney and claims she cannot recall the specifics of their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00009383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 322) filed on February 24, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Brune and the commencement of testimony by a new government witness, attorney Laurie Edelstein. During direct examination, Mr. Okula asks Ms. Edelstein a hypothetical question regarding a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009382.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Okula, addresses the judge. He clarifies his team's actions after receiving a note, explaining they did not conduct an independent investigation because they deemed it innocuous and assumed the government was performing its own research. Mr. Okula states that he only learned the government had not done this research upon seeing a motion filed by the defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00009381.jpg
This page is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features a redirect examination of a witness named Brune by the Court. The discussion centers on the vetting of 'Juror No. 1,' specifically whether the witness knew the juror was a suspended lawyer and why the witness did not alert the government to this possibility, assuming the government had also 'Googled' the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009380.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned by the Judge about why his firm did not disclose knowledge regarding 'Juror No. 1.' Brune argues that the information was easily accessible via Google and assumed the government had also found it, specifically mentioning a letter the government received and a 'Westlaw report.'
DOJ-OGR-00009378.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The Court questions Brune about their firm's ethical obligation to disclose information from a July 21 letter concerning an investigation into Juror No. 1. Brune states that while they have an ethical duty to be accurate and honest, they do not believe they were obligated to proactively disclose the information or anticipate the government's arguments if the court had not inquired.
DOJ-OGR-00009377.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the testimony of a witness named Brune. During redirect and recross examination, Brune explains that a particular document resembled a credit report and merely confirmed a pre-existing belief, hence they chose not to investigate further despite their past training as an AUSA. The questioning then turns to redacted Social Security numbers on the document and what the witness learned from an unredacted version.
DOJ-OGR-00009376.jpg
This document is a transcript of a redirect examination in a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is questioned about why they did not investigate an individual further, despite a Westlaw report indicating she was a suspended attorney. The witness explains their belief that the report had conflated two different people with the same name, and they were convinced the person in question was a 'Bronxville stay-at-home wife' and not the lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009375.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a document that contains addresses in the Bronx and Bronxville, lists of lawsuits, and a household description. The key point of the exchange is the identification of Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' within that household and corroborating this identification with prior email traffic from a Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a redirect examination by an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report concerning a person named Catherine M. Conrad, verifying her name, birth year (1969), and age (41) against a jury list provided before voir dire. Attorneys Gair and Shechtman raise objections during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.
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-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009369.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 308) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned by Mr. Davis about a mistake in a legal brief regarding the timing of a Google search relative to receiving a letter. The testimony also confirms that David Parse was convicted of two charges and acquitted of four, and that the witness believed the jury rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009368.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune denies meeting with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein specifically to prepare for the hearing but confirms they collaborated extensively on a July 21st letter to accurately reconstruct events. The questioning focuses on the extent of their communication and preparation regarding the issues before the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is testifying about a July 22nd phone call with the Judge regarding the identification of jury consultants, specifically mentioning Mr. Donohue, Julie Blackman, and Mr. Schoeman. The testimony clarifies that Mr. Nardello performed investigative work but was not a jury consultant.
DOJ-OGR-00009363.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune. Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, is questioned about her ethical standards regarding the disclosure of facts to the court and the government. She defends her past actions by stating she did not believe it was her obligation to raise the opposing side's points and assumed the government had access to the same, if not more, information.
DOJ-OGR-00009362.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune explains the reasoning behind filing a legal brief, noting that other lawyers on the case were surprised by their findings. The questioning focuses on a July 22nd phone call and Brune's anticipation that the government would raise a "waiver issue," for which Brune planned to answer truthfully.
DOJ-OGR-00009361.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Ms. Brune, the deponent, discusses legal standards regarding juror misconduct, referencing 'McDonough' cases and a 'New York ethical rule'. She clarifies her firm's lack of 'actual knowledge' of misconduct and acknowledges a July 22nd telephone call where she, her firm, or defendant Parse was deemed 'differently situated' from other defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009358.jpg
This document is page 297 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Davis. The questioning focuses on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a 'suspension opinion' and a 'Westlaw report' that came to light before voir dire. Mr. Davis is pressing the witness to confirm that a Westlaw report was attached to a letter submitted to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's knowledge regarding a July 15th conference call and a July 21st letter, specifically probing whether Brune knew that statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during the call were incorrect. Brune denies having this knowledge and explains she read the transcript to understand a directive from Judge Pauley.
DOJ-OGR-00009356.jpg
This is page 295 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Ms. Brune (likely Susan Brune, a defense attorney), is being questioned about a female partner in her law firm regarding ethical obligations and the review of a final brief. Brune confirms reviewing 'email traffic' leading up to the submission of a 'July 21st letter' to ensure material information was conveyed to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg
Transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) proceedings, specifically the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding the vetting of Juror 'Conrad'. Ms. Brune testifies about the distinction between a 'database search' and a full 'investigation' conducted by her team (including Benhamou, Kim, and Stapp) on May 12th. The testimony highlights a disconnect in the legal team's knowledge, admitting that Ms. Trzaskoma knew about specific email traffic that Ms. Brune was unaware of when she filed a brief stating there was no basis to question the juror's honesty.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity