Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Jur...
Summary
Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity, but agrees that sharing a middle initial with another person of the same name makes it statistically more likely they are the same person.
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Related Documents (6)
deposition: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity, but agrees that sharing a middle initial with another person of the same name makes it statistically more likely they are the same person.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-13038
The witness, Schoeman, testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1, discussing a person with the same name who was a disbarred lawyer. Trzaskoma assured Schoeman it was not the same person based on the voir dire process. No further discussion about Juror No. 1 occurred with Trzaskoma or anyone at the Brune firm during that time.
court transcript: A-5745
The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a conversation regarding a suspension opinion and whether certain individuals were informed about it. The witness is unsure if Ms. Edelstein asked to see the suspension opinion, but confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma informed Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about the issue on May 12th.
deposition transcript: A-5761
The deposition transcript discusses the voir dire process, jury consultants, and an investigation related to juror questionnaires. The witness is questioned about the involvement of specific individuals, including Mr. Donohue and Julie Blackman, as jury consultants. The court had expressed interest in understanding the process between the completion of juror questionnaires and the commencement of voir dire.
deposition transcript: A-5762
The witness, Brune, testifies about the Nardello firm's investigative work and its connection to Juror No. 1, and whether this information was disclosed to Judge Pauley during a conference call. Brune confirms that Nardello did jury research but claims that the details were laid out in their brief.
deposition transcript: A-5816
The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer at Kramer Levin, who represented Raymond Craig Brubaker in the trial of David Parse. Schoeman discusses his involvement in the trial and the role of his partner Barry Berke. He is questioned about a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, read aloud by the Court on May 11, 2011.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.