deposition transcript: A-5756
Summary
The document is a transcript of Ms. Brune's testimony in a criminal case. She is questioned about discrepancies between facts presented in a letter and a brief, and her understanding of material facts uncovered before the jury's verdict. The testimony highlights potential inconsistencies in the defense's presentation of facts.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Related Documents (6)
court transcript: A-5779
The transcript shows the court excusing a witness, Ms. Brune, and then proceeding with the testimony of Laura Edelstein, who is being questioned by government lawyer Mr. Okula about a lawyer's obligations regarding jury misconduct.
deposition: A-5738
Ms. Brune testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1's identity, stating that Ms. Trzaskoma expressed doubts but did not mention a Westlaw report. Ms. Brune concludes that Juror No. 1 is who she claimed to be.
deposition transcript: A-5722
The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is questioned about her understanding of the significance of certain information regarding a potential juror and the steps she took or didn't take to verify this information. The questioning attorney presses Ms. Brune for her understanding and actions, with objections and comments from other attorneys and the court.
Deposition transcript: A-5766
The transcript captures the cross-examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about the firm's decision-making process during jury selection, specifically regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, and whether she was believed to be a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they did not believe Catherine Conrad was a suspended lawyer based on her responses during voir dire.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03363-PAE
The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her team's research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, and whether she had her team conduct additional research before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team to do so, relying instead on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion.
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.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.