Event Details
December 03, 2025
Description
Date witness found information regarding a juror
Participants (1)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ms. Brune | person | 82 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
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).
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding her knowledge and actions during the voir dire process.
Date unknown • Court (implied)
Voir dire, the process of jury selection, is discussed.
Date unknown • Court (implied)
The writing of a legal brief by Edelstein and Ms. Brune.
Date unknown
Redirect examination of Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis, during which Government Exhibit 28 (a letter from Ms. Brune) is admitted into evidence.
Date unknown • The Court
A discussion between Edelstein and Ms. Brune about what information to include or omit in a legal brief concerning Catherine Conrad.
Date unknown
Edelstein and Ms. Brune specifically decided what information to include or exclude from a legal brief.
Date unknown
Ms. Brune, her firm, or defendant Parse acknowledged being differently situated than other defendants during a telephone call on July 22nd.
Date unknown
Discussion between the speaker, Ms. Edelstein, and Ms. Brune regarding Catherine Conrad and a Westlaw report.
Date unknown
The jury selection process for a trial that was expected to be very long. A key issue was the availability of jurors. A potential juror with a criminal record (turnstile jumping, lookout for burglary) was considered but not challenged.
Date unknown
A three-month long trial for which the jury selection discussed in the document was conducted.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event