deposition transcript: A-5765
Summary
Ms. Brune testifies about the potential misinterpretation of a brief due to its wording, and discusses the conviction and acquittal of David Parse, expressing her belief in the jury's impartial verdict on the acquitted charges.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
deposition: A-5760
Ms. Brune testifies that she attempted to be accurate in a submitted brief, but acknowledges it had shortcomings. She denies that the brief contained material omissions, stating that it was not her intention to omit material information.
Deposition or Trial Transcript: A-5769
The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where Ms. Brune is being questioned by MR. DAVIS about Government Exhibit 28, a letter she wrote on July 21st. The exhibit is admitted into evidence without objection. The witness is then asked to review an attached Westlaw report.
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 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.
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.