deposition transcript: A-5707
Summary
The document is a transcript of a deposition where an attorney, Brune, is being questioned about their representation of David Parse. Brune testifies about making strategic decisions on behalf of Parse and the trust Parse had in them and their firm. The questioning also touches on Brune's willingness to raise issues with the court.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (4)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: A-5708
The document is a transcript of an attorney, Brune, being questioned about their representation of a client, David Parse. Brune testifies about being a 'forceful advocate' and the extent of their certainty when raising issues with the court. The questioning touches on the attorney's conduct and their approach to advocacy.
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-5824
Barry H. Berke testifies about his employment history, including his work as a partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel and his involvement in the trial of David Parse. He provides details about his background, including his time as a clerk, Federal Defender, and visiting associate professor at NYU. Berke confirms he was a lawyer in the courtroom during the trial of David Parse.
Court Order and Filings: 605
The document is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding proposed redactions to court documents in the case against Ghislain Maxwell. The court rejected some proposed redactions and ordered the parties to resubmit revised redactions. The document also includes excerpts from a related case involving David Parse, who was convicted of tax fraud.
court transcript: A-5904
The transcript records the oral argument on David Parse's motion for a new trial, with his attorney Paul Shechtman arguing that Parse received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court is familiar with the Strickland standard, a two-part test for determining ineffective assistance. Shechtman believes that if they reach the prejudice prong, they are likely to prevail.
court transcript: A-5925
The transcript captures a court hearing where Ms. Davis argues that the split verdict in David Parse's case is evidence of a lack of prejudice and that the jury made a deliberate decision based on the law and evidence. She references a letter from juror Catherine Conrad that supports this interpretation. The court acknowledges her argument.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.