SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009354.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief drafted by Ms. Trzaskoma and signed/approved by Brune, which allegedly omitted the fact that the defense had accessed a 'suspension opinion' during the trial. Brune admits to regretting the oversight but argues the investigation mentioned in the brief was genuinely prompted by a letter from Ms. Conrad, disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009353.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5749) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune (likely an attorney), who admits to regretting a legal brief she filed under her signature which contained inaccurate or incomplete facts. She discusses the legal strategy at the time involving 'Mr. Parse' and references the 'Martha Stewart' case as a comparison for avoiding dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness named Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about communications she had with defense counsel after receiving a copy of a letter from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Brune states these were 'joint defense communications' and recounts becoming upset by a jury note, after which her colleague, Ms. Edelstein, verified a phone number from the letter on the Bar website.
DOJ-OGR-00009349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune by Ms. Davis. The testimony centers on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a Ms. Edelstein asked to see a 'suspension opinion.' There is a legal dispute regarding a question about Ms. Trzaskoma informing Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th, with the defense objecting to the accuracy of the date and the prosecution arguing they are permitted to lead an adverse witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
DOJ-OGR-00009347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 286) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of Ms. Brune (likely a defense attorney), who is being questioned about her failure to bring Google search results regarding a juror to the Court's attention during or after voir dire. Brune defends her actions by stating she believed the information she found referred to a different person than the juror, based on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife' rather than an attorney. Brune also affirms her obligation to the Court remains the same as when she was an Assistant US Attorney (AUSA).
DOJ-OGR-00009346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of Brune) designated A-5742. The testimony concerns procedural events in court, specifically the restarting of jury deliberations due to a juror's illness and the presence of alternate jurors. The witness also discusses the illness of Mr. Rosenbaum and denies withholding an issue from the Court until Rosenbaum fell ill.
DOJ-OGR-00009345.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned about her failure to report a 'significant piece of information' to the Court's chambers. The questioner establishes that Ms. Brune had the resources, including an investigative team and a BlackBerry for immediate communication, to act on the information. Ms. Brune states she didn't believe the information was accurate at the time but confirms her team was diligent and would have followed any instructions she gave them.
DOJ-OGR-00009344.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony covers the credibility of government witnesses (lawyers who pleaded guilty to false statements to the IRS), the division of labor regarding jury selection between Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma, and a specific conversation they had at 'the plaza' regarding potential information.
DOJ-OGR-00009343.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony centers on Ms. Brune's reasoning for not further investigating an individual (referred to as 'she') who might have been a suspended lawyer, citing reliance on sworn voir dire responses. The questioning attorney challenges this by pointing out that the indictment itself focused on the misconduct of lawyers and that several codefendants were lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00009342.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune is questioned about a prior conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which they discussed the possibility that Juror No. 1 might be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they dismissed the idea as nonsensical and asserts confidently that Ms. Trzaskoma never mentioned a Westlaw report on the matter, citing the thorough nature of another colleague, Laurie Edelstein, as the basis for her certainty.
DOJ-OGR-00009341.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness by an attorney named Brune. The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein while heading to 52 Duane, where they speculated that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer, referencing a personal injury suit in the Bronx and legal concepts like vicarious liability.
DOJ-OGR-00009340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune testifies about their knowledge of research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma, stating they became aware of it on May 18th but knew on May 12th that she had found a disciplinary decision on Google. The transcript details a conversation on May 12th between Brune, Ms. Trzaskoma, and Ms. Edelstein that occurred after court near Foley Square.
DOJ-OGR-00009339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Witness 'Brune' is being questioned about when they became aware of research conducted by their colleague Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50). The testimony focuses on whether Brune was included in email traffic regarding this research prior to jury deliberations. Attorneys Schectman and Davis argue over the timestamp (West Coast vs East Coast) of a specific note.
DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies about being present for an entire trial, having a clear view of the jury, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being very attentive and taking copious notes. The document is part of case file 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009336.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process for a lengthy, three-month trial. The questioning focuses on the decision not to challenge a potential juror with a criminal history and confirms that juror availability was a significant issue, which Judge Pauley addressed with the jury pool from the beginning.
DOJ-OGR-00009335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically referencing a joint defense agreement among counsel and the collective nature of juror challenges based on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge. The questioning turns to a specific juror, Mr. Aponte, and begins to address whether he had a criminal history before the page cuts off.
DOJ-OGR-00009334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on the jury selection (voir dire) process, specifically what Ms. Brune knew about a prospective juror and whether she shared that information with other defense counsel. Ms. Brune confirms that all defense counsel met with a Dennis Donahue before the jury was selected and explains why she discarded certain information as not relevant to the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why Brune and their team did not inform the court about information suggesting a juror was a suspended attorney. Brune explains that the information, found via a Google search by a colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was initially dismissed as pertaining to a different person and that they did not have a physical printout of the document in court.
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-00009328.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (likely related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the case number) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Brune' (likely defense attorney Susan Brune), is testifying about the defense team's jury research process, specifically regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad. Brune admits that the investigative firm Nardello did not search for Conrad and discusses the timing of when the team focused on the juror's middle initial relative to a letter disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009327.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about her jury selection process, specifically regarding why she did not ask Judge Pauley to clarify discrepancies found in "Google-type information" about jurors. Ms. Brune admits she was aware she could have requested the judge to inquire further but chose not to.
DOJ-OGR-00009326.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned about her assessment of potentially significant information regarding a juror and whether it should have been raised with a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes legal objections and rulings, indicating a contentious line of questioning.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity