deposition: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
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.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: A-5822
The document is a deposition transcript where Mr. Schoeman is questioned about his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity and whether more information would have been helpful. He expresses uncertainty about the usefulness of additional information but agrees that sharing a middle initial makes it statistically more likely that two individuals with the same name are the same person.
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.
deposition: A-5821
The document is a deposition of Mr. Schoeman, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, discussing his investigation into Juror No. 1. He was questioned about his actions and decisions regarding potentially relevant information about the juror's connection to a suspended attorney. Mr. Schoeman stated that he did not receive certain information from Theresa Trzaskoma and was uncertain about what he would have done if he had received it.
deposition: A-5783
The deposition transcript discusses Ms. Edelstein's reaction to learning about a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad and whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person. Ms. Edelstein initially thought it was impossible due to Juror No. 1's voir dire responses, specifically her education level. The questioning focuses on whether further investigation was warranted to verify Juror No. 1's identity.
deposition: A-5829
The witness discusses a conversation with someone from the Brune firm about Juror No. 1 and a potential connection to a suspended attorney. The witness didn't receive detailed information about the connection but recalls discussing Juror No. 1's possible involvement in a personal injury case. The witness is questioned about whether they would have wanted information about a written report on Juror No. 1's background.
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.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.