Ms. Trizaskoma
team member involved in discussions about the juror
Mentioned in 43 documents. Roles: team member involved in discussions about the juror, partner at Brune's firm, responsible for jury selection details, One of the defendants or their lawyer, person who informed Ms. Brune about the conference call and whose statements to the Court are being discussed, Handled a telephone conference with the Court
Ms. Trizaskoma 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 transcript: 1616620
“The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant”
deposition transcript: 16166201
“The deposition transcript details Brune's testimony about their firm's handling of jury selection, t”
court filing or legal memorandum: 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522
“The document discusses the lawyers' statements about their reaction to a juror's letter and their in”
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 o”
deposition transcript: 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 130
“The witness clarifies the timeline of events related to a court case, initially making an error but ”
Sources
1 source for known connections
Co-Document Mentions
“Named alongside other network members in 130 documents”
Known Connections (23)
Document Mentions (43)
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: 16166201
The deposition transcript details Brune's testimony about their firm's handling of jury selection, their team's responsibilities, and observations of juror behavior during the trial, particularly noting juror Conrad's attentiveness and note-taking.
court filing or legal memorandum: 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522
The document discusses the lawyers' statements about their reaction to a juror's letter and their investigation into the juror's background, concluding that the statements were true as reasonably read and did not constitute a knowing misrepresentation under Rule 3.3.
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 58 of 130
The witness clarifies the timeline of events related to a court case, initially making an error but later correcting it to July 18th. The discussion involves the witness's knowledge of a Westlaw report and the characteristics of Ms. Edelstein. The transcript appears to be part of a larger legal proceeding.
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.
Court Transcript: 1:20-cv-03038-PAE
The document contains excerpts from a court transcript in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas et al., dated February 15, 2012. It includes testimony from witnesses Conrad and Trzaskoma. The case was heard in the Southern District of New York.
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-cv-13038
The witness, Schoeman, testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1, discussing a person with the same name who was a disbarred lawyer. Trzaskoma assured Schoeman it was not the same person based on the voir dire process. No further discussion about Juror No. 1 occurred with Trzaskoma or anyone at the Brune firm during that time.
Court Filing - Exhibit List: 1:20-cv-30038-PAE
The document appears to be a list of exhibits filed in a court case, including records of Catherine Conrad/Rosa and Frank Rosa's criminal history, as well as documents related to a previous court case, Conrad v. Manessis.
deposition transcript: A-5710
The witness, Brune, testifies about their firm's handling of jury selection in a case, confirming that partner Trzaskoma was involved in gathering information about potential jurors and was supervised by Brune.
deposition: A-5720
The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her decision not to research a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits she had the resources and opportunity to do so but chose not to, instead relying on the voir dire process. The questioning highlights the availability of a large team to assist with research.
deposition transcript: A-5724
The witness, Brune, testifies about the methods used to investigate potential jurors, stating that they relied on sworn testimony during voir dire and did not conduct a full-scale private investigation. Brune also discusses the handling of juror information, including the use of middle initials to identify jurors.
Showing 15 of 43 documents. View all →
This dossier on Ms. Trizaskoma was compiled from court records, flight logs, and public documents. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.