Relationship Details

This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.

This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of Ms. Brune. She explains that a legal brief her firm wrote "missed the issue" because they were focused on other aspects of the case and lacked certain information, which she regrets. Ms. Brune also confirms that she believed the jury's verdict to acquit David Parse on four of six charges was fair and impartial.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge ('THE COURT') and a lawyer ('MR. SHECHTMAN') about the government's failure to disclose information in a timely manner and making misleading statements in a memorandum. Mr. Shechtman concedes the point and states his intention to submit the documents in question for the judge's private 'in camera' review, viewing it as an inevitable step to resolve the issue of privilege.

This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on the jury selection process, specifically whether Ms. Brune's firm was aware that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they believed her sworn answers during voir dire ruled this out and that they would not have wanted a suspended lawyer on the jury for a case involving lawyers.

This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on March 22, 2022. In it, the judge ('The Court') asks counsel, Mr. Shechtman, for briefing on a hypothetical scenario regarding the appellate rights of both the defendant, Parse, and the government if a new trial were to be granted. Mr. Shechtman clarifies that the key issue is whether the defendant could file an interlocutory appeal before sentencing, which the Court confirms.

This document is a court transcript filed on March 24, 2022, capturing the end of a hearing. The judge finalizes deadlines with counsel, Mr. Shechtman and Mr. Okula, setting March 23 for initial briefs and April 5 for responses, before thanking them and adjourning the proceedings.

This document is a court transcript from March 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on why Berke did not further investigate a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, with Berke stating it was concluded they were different people based on the voir dire. After the examination, the witness is excused, and the court asks if the defense, representing a defendant named Parse, has any more witnesses.