deposition transcript: A-5793
Summary
The deponent discusses receiving a letter from Catherine Conrad and their subsequent conversation with Susan Brune about it. The letter revealed information about jury deliberations, disturbing the deponent. The deponent discussed the Appellate Division order with Susan Brune but not the Westlaw report.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
deposition transcript: A-5825
The deponent, a lawyer, testifies about representing Craig Brubaker and discusses a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, regarding jury instructions. The deponent also recounts a conversation with opposing counsel Susan Brune about Conrad.
deposition transcript: 1616630
The witness testifies about representing Craig Brubaker, recalls a juror's note asking about respondeat superior, and discusses a conversation with Susan Brune about the juror.
deposition transcript: A-5721
The deposition transcript shows Brune being questioned about their actions during a trial, specifically regarding the discovery of information about a potential juror named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they did not immediately inform the court about the information and did not require anyone to explain its significance to them. The testimony highlights Brune's understanding of the potential significance of the information.
deposition transcript: A-5735
The witness, Brune, testifies that they were not included in email traffic related to Catherine Conrad and does not recall being made aware of it. The discussion involves a note that prompted additional research and a dispute about the timing of an email sent by Ms. Trzaskoma.
deposition: Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 08/24/22 Page 34 of 130
The witness, Brune, discusses a conversation about Catherine Conrad, a potential juror, and how the jury consultant advised striking her due to her background as a recovering alcoholic. The conversation highlights the jury selection process and the factors considered when evaluating potential jurors. The document is part of a larger court filing in a criminal case.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03308
The deponent discusses their conversation with Susan Brune about the brief, their level of knowledge regarding juror misconduct, and the editing process. They decided to focus on whether a suspended lawyer and a juror were the same person. The deponent ultimately edited the fact section of the brief.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.