Juror number one
subject of discussion regarding identity and background
Mentioned in 10 documents. Roles: subject of discussion regarding identity and background, juror in the trial, Juror in the case, Allegedly a suspended New York attorney, Juror who sent a note raising legal concepts
Juror number one is mentioned in documents or reporting related to the Epstein case. Being mentioned does not imply any wrongdoing, criminal conduct, or inappropriate behavior.
At a Glance
Click values for sourcesSources
5 sources for document mentions
deposition: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
“Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Jur”
deposition transcript: A-5734
“The witness, Brune, testifies that Juror No. 1 seemed normal during the trial and didn't raise any c”
Deposition transcript: A-5737
“The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein about Juror No. 1, speculat”
Deposition transcript: A-5780
“The deposition transcript captures Ms. Edelstein's testimony, where she denies that her partner, The”
deposition: A-5781
“The deponent discusses a conversation with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma about a note from Juror”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 26 documents”
Known Connections (9)
Document Mentions (10)
deposition: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117
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.
deposition transcript: A-5734
The witness, Brune, testifies that Juror No. 1 seemed normal during the trial and didn't raise any concerns. Brune was present when Juror No. 1 sent a note to the court, which was later read by Judge Pauley after summations. The note was marked as Court Exhibit 3.
Deposition transcript: A-5737
The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein about Juror No. 1, speculating that she might be a suspended lawyer due to similarities between her voir dire responses and the juror note. They discussed the juror's background, including a personal injury suit, and initially downplayed the significance of the juror note.
Deposition transcript: A-5780
The deposition transcript captures Ms. Edelstein's testimony, where she denies that her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her about potential juror misconduct on May 12. Edelstein also confirms that she is someone who demands to see underlying documents when confronted with an issue.
deposition: A-5781
The deponent discusses a conversation with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma about a note from Juror No. 1 and the discovery of a suspended New York lawyer with the same name. The deponent was unaware of the report and didn't ask to see the paper that formed Trzaskoma's belief. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the juror's note and its potential impact on the trial.
deposition: A-5782
A witness is being questioned about their conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1's potential connection to a suspended New York attorney. The witness did not ask Trzaskoma for evidence or underlying documents supporting her belief. The testimony highlights the lack of investigation into Trzaskoma's claim.
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 transcript: A-5786
The witness is being questioned about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer with a similar name. Ms. Trzaskoma had considered the possibility that they were the same person but after reviewing voir dire responses, found inconsistencies. The witness ultimately concluded that they were not the same person.
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: 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.
This dossier on Juror number one was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.