Mr. Schectman conducts a recross-examination of the witness, Brune.
Mr. Schectman is an attorney conducting the recross-examination of Brune, the witness.
Mr. Schectman, an attorney, is conducting a recross examination of Brune, a witness.
Mr. Schectman, an attorney, concludes his questioning of the witness, Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00010056.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript detailing the redirect and recross-examination of a witness named Brune. Brune justifies not investigating a matter further by explaining that a document, which they viewed as similar to a credit report, only confirmed a pre-existing belief about two individuals sharing a name. The questioning then shifts, with attorney Mr. Schectman asking about redacted Social Security numbers on a document that Brune has seen in its unredacted form.
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-00010057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning, led by the Court and involving attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, covers a fraud alert related to two Social Security numbers and the ethical obligations of the witness's firm. A key point of discussion is whether the firm would have voluntarily disclosed information from a July 21 letter about an investigation into Juror No. 7 without being prompted by the Court or the government.
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.
Entities connected to both MR. SCHECTMAN and Brune
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship