deposition: A-5751
Summary
Ms. Brune is questioned about her involvement in an investigation and her statements in a memorandum. She clarifies her understanding of 'investigation' and acknowledges that some actions could have been handled differently. The deposition also touches on the knowledge of email traffic among the defendants' representatives.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
deposition transcript: A-5748
The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her knowledge and disclosure of a Google search and a Westlaw report to defense counsel. She testifies that she did not initially discuss the Google search with co-counsel and learned about the Westlaw report later. The questioning highlights potential discrepancies in her knowledge and communication with co-counsel.
deposition transcript: 1616620
The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant, conversations about a juror's identity, and the team's response to new information about the juror. The testimony reveals details about the team's actions and potential inconsistencies in their statements.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 68 of 130
Ms. Brune testifies that she saw certain emails before filing a July 21st letter and had knowledge of the July 15th conference call transcript. She disagrees that Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court were incorrect.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 613 of 130
The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about her knowledge of Ms. Trzaskoma's potential attorney suspension and the actions taken by her team during the eight-day jury deliberation period.
deposition: 1:20-cv-00330-PAE
Ms. Brune testifies about a brief she wrote, admitting it missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of an investigation. She also acknowledges that her colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was aware of the investigation but it was not accurately reflected in the brief.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 61102/20
Ms. Edelstein is cross-examined about a conversation with colleagues regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. She explains that they didn't bring it to the court's attention because they deemed it inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer. There was no discussion about raising a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion until after receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.