SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009325.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, Ms. Brune (a defense attorney), is being questioned about her failure to inform the Court during jury selection that a Google search revealed a prospective juror (or person with a similar name), Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009324.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. The questioning focuses on why Brune and her team of nearly two dozen people failed to conduct additional research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name matched that of an individual in a New York court opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00009323.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript page where a witness named Brune recounts discussions about a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, during voir dire. A colleague named Theresa discovered a suspended lawyer with the same name, and a jury consultant advised striking Conrad from the jury, arguing that as a recovering alcoholic, she would likely focus more on personal responsibility than the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009322.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding preparations for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline of receiving information, including a juror list, research from the Nardello firm, and a 2010 suspension opinion concerning Catherine M. Conrad. Brune clarifies that the opinion was discussed on the morning of court in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue, rather than definitively before the start of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg
This court transcript excerpt details the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, who is an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations regarding juror misconduct and a specific conversation on May 12, 2011, with Theresa Trzaskoma. The conversation concerned whether a juror who sent a note with legal terms was a lawyer previously identified through a Google search.
DOJ-OGR-00009320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5716) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness, identified as Brune, is being questioned about the legal team's use of technology and personnel during the trial, specifically mentioning Donna Kane from Decision Quest regarding graphics. The testimony confirms that team members Theresa Trzaskoma and Lori Edelstein had laptops and internet/email access in the courtroom during voir dire and jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune clarifies that the jury research conducted by the Nardello firm was strictly limited to database searches per his instructions. He also details the role of Suann Ingle of Ingle Communications, who was part of his team and responsible for creating and presenting graphics for opening and closing statements, some of which were for a Dr. DeRosa.
DOJ-OGR-00009317.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony focuses on the staffing of Brune's legal team, identifying Nancy as a paralegal, Ken Renta as the managing clerk responsible for filings, and Dennis Donahue as a jury consultant hired specifically for the case who was present during voir dire. The document is part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009315.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony details the composition of the legal defense team, identifying specific partners and associates (Edelstein, Hollander, Kim, Stapp) and their respective office locations (San Francisco and New York). It also mentions communications regarding issues during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009314.jpg
This document is a court transcript excerpt from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The testimony focuses on the roles and responsibilities for jury selection within Brune's law firm for a particular case. Brune clarifies that while they were ultimately responsible, a partner named Ms. Trzaskoma was more deeply involved in the details and supervised other lawyers in gathering information on potential jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009312.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's professional philosophy as a "forceful advocate," the factual certainty behind issues they raised in court, and their prior representation of David Parse. Brune defends their conduct, stating they strive for accuracy and only raise issues they believe have merit.
DOJ-OGR-00009311.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on establishing the nature of the lawyer-client relationship between Brune and his client, David Parse, confirming that Parse trusted Brune and his firm to make strategic decisions and that Brune had a good working relationship with him.
DOJ-OGR-00009310.jpg
This document is page 249 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune, an attorney, regarding the marketing and claims made on the website of their law firm, Brune & Richard. The questioning focuses on Brune's self-description regarding 'sound strategic choices,' 'meticulous preparation,' and 'forceful advocacy.'
DOJ-OGR-00009309.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune clarifies that a female colleague had a limited role in a past trial, assisting with the closing statement but not being part of the trial team. He also discusses his own legal experience, including conducting many Grand Jury investigations and his pride in his law firm.
DOJ-OGR-00009308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers Brune's professional background, specifically leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York in November 1997 to start the law firm Brune & Richard with Hillary Richard in February 1998. The witness confirms that while Hillary Richard has done criminal cases, she is primarily a civil lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009305.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript filed on February 24, 2022, detailing the appearances for a hearing. It identifies the legal counsel for defendants Field and Parse, as well as for a Ms. Conrad. The document also notes the presence of IRS Special Agent Christine Mazzella.
DOJ-OGR-00004907.jpg
This document is a page from a sealed court transcript filed on July 2, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript captures a dialogue between the Court and attorney Mr. Rossmiller regarding the definition of confidential materials involving plaintiff Virginia Roberts and a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. The discussion focuses on privilege, privacy interests, and a proposed order submitted to Judge Sweet.
DOJ-OGR-00004901.jpg
This court transcript details a discussion about a protective order that the presiding judge believes is on 'precarious footing'. The order was granted years prior by Judge Sweet, who is now deceased, making it difficult to ascertain the original reasoning. The judge and Mr. Rossmiller debate whether the Second Circuit would or should handle an inquiry involving 150 litigation documents to resolve the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00004900.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 2, 2021, detailing a conversation between Mr. Rossmiller and a judge regarding a protective order over sealed documents from a settled libel lawsuit. The judge expresses reluctance to uphold the order, citing the Second Circuit's apparent criticism of Judge Sweet for failing to conduct a detailed inquiry into the confidentiality of each document. The core issue is whether the sealed litigation materials should remain confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sealed case, filed on July 2, 2021. In the transcript, the judge questions a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, about a procedural issue: why the government has filed a motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party, rather than the third party's own law firm, Boies Schiller, filing it. The judge expresses skepticism about this arrangement and asserts their judicial authority, referencing the Martindell case as applicable precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00004774.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 15, 2021, detailing the conclusion of a sentencing hearing for the defendant, Ms. Days. The judge imposes a sentence of 60 months, confirms that Ms. Days has waived her right to appeal, and dismisses all remaining open counts against her. The transcript also notes that the defendant waived her right to be physically present for the sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00004773.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 15, 2021. In it, a judge questions the defendant, Ms. Days, to ensure she understands the terms of her plea agreement, specifically a clause waiving her right to appeal if her sentence is 78 months or less. The judge confirms that her attorney, Mr. Donaldson, explained this waiver to her before she signed the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004772.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding dated June 15, 2021, detailing the conditions of supervised release for a defendant. A speaker, likely a judge, outlines strict rules including submission to searches by a U.S. probation officer, restrictions on travel outside the judicial district, and prohibitions on associating with individuals engaged in criminal activity. Failure to comply with these conditions could lead to the revocation of supervised release and re-incarceration.
DOJ-OGR-00004770.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on June 15, 2021. The Court recommends that Ms. Days be incarcerated at Danbury to facilitate family visitation and be enrolled in the RDAP drug treatment program, citing her benefit from coursework and mentoring. The Judge also issues instructions for Ms. Days to report to a probation officer within 72 hours of her eventual release.
DOJ-OGR-00004768.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding filed on June 15, 2021, where a judge is sentencing the defendant, Tiffany Days. The judge accepts the presentence report, acknowledges mitigating circumstances from the defendant's past, and sentences her to a mandatory minimum of 60 months in prison followed by four years of supervised release. Due to her inability to pay, no fine or restitution is imposed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity