Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616 Filed 08/24/22 Page 83 of 130 A-5768
311
C2grdau2 Brune - cross
1 A. No.
2 Q. I ask you the same question. Why not?
3 A. We spent a lot of time thinking about appellate issues, but
4 we didn't think that there had been juror misconduct and
5 therefore didn't think that there was an appellate issue.
6 Q. At any time between the verdict on May 24th and the receipt
7 of the letter on June 20th, did your firm contact the Nardello
8 firm to do additional investigation about Ms. Conrad?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Why not?
11 A. I didn't think there was anything to investigate.
12 Q. At any time during these proceedings, "these proceedings"
13 meaning between the initial voir dire and today, have you tried
14 to sandbag this Court or plant error in the record as to Juror
15 No. 1, Ms. Conrad?
16 A. No.
17 MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Redirect, Ms. Davis?
19 MR. DAVIS: I assume there is no other defense counsel
20 who wishes to inquire?
21 THE COURT: Does any defense counsel wish to inquire?
22 MR. GAIR: No, thank you, your Honor.
23 MR. ROTERT: No, thank you, Judge.
24 MS. McCARTHY: No, your Honor.
25 MR. DAVIS: Just briefly, your Honor.
MR. DAVIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009372
@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5768
AI Analysis
Summary: The document is a transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, discussing the investigation into Juror No. 1 and potential appellate issues. Brune testifies that his firm did not investigate Juror No. 1 further after the verdict. The witness denies attempting to 'sandbag' the court or plant error in the record regarding Juror No. 1.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the testimony of a key witness regarding the investigation into Juror No. 1 and potential appellate issues.
Key Topics:
Juror misconduct
Appellate issues
Investigation into Juror No. 1
Key People:
- Brune - Witness being cross-examined
- Shechtman - Prosecutor or attorney conducting cross-examination
- Davis - Attorney conducting redirect examination
- Conrad - Juror No. 1, subject of investigation
Full Text
Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616 Filed 08/24/22 Page 83 of 130 A-5768
311
C2grdau2 Brune - cross
1 A. No.
2 Q. I ask you the same question. Why not?
3 A. We spent a lot of time thinking about appellate issues, but
4 we didn't think that there had been juror misconduct and
5 therefore didn't think that there was an appellate issue.
6 Q. At any time between the verdict on May 24th and the receipt
7 of the letter on June 20th, did your firm contact the Nardello
8 firm to do additional investigation about Ms. Conrad?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Why not?
11 A. I didn't think there was anything to investigate.
12 Q. At any time during these proceedings, "these proceedings"
13 meaning between the initial voir dire and today, have you tried
14 to sandbag this Court or plant error in the record as to Juror
15 No. 1, Ms. Conrad?
16 A. No.
17 MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Redirect, Ms. Davis?
19 MR. DAVIS: I assume there is no other defense counsel
20 who wishes to inquire?
21 THE COURT: Does any defense counsel wish to inquire?
22 MR. GAIR: No, thank you, your Honor.
23 MR. ROTERT: No, thank you, Judge.
24 MS. McCARTHY: No, your Honor.
25 MR. DAVIS: Just briefly, your Honor.
MR. DAVIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009372
--- PAGE BREAK ---
C2grdau2 Brune - cross 311
1 A. No.
2 Q. I ask you the same question. Why not?
3 A. We spent a lot of time thinking about appellate issues, but
4 we didn't think that there had been juror misconduct and
5 therefore didn't think that there was an appellate issue.
6 Q. At any time between the verdict on May 24th and the receipt
7 of the letter on June 20th, did your firm contact the Nardello
8 firm to do additional investigation about Ms. Conrad?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Why not?
11 A. I didn't think there was anything to investigate.
12 Q. At any time during these proceedings, "these proceedings"
13 meaning between the initial voir dire and today, have you tried
14 to sandbag this Court or plant error in the record as to Juror
15 No. 1, Ms. Conrad?
16 A. No.
17 MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Redirect, Ms. Davis?
19 MR. DAVIS: I assume there is no other defense counsel
20 who wishes to inquire?
21 THE COURT: Does any defense counsel wish to inquire?
22 MR. GAIR: No, thank you, your Honor.
23 MR. ROTERT: No, thank you, Judge.
24 MS. McCARTHY: No, your Honor.
25 MR. DAVIS: Just briefly, your Honor.
MR. DAVIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010051
Individual Pages
Page 83 - DOJ-OGR-00009372
Page 311 - DOJ-OGR-00010051
C2grdau2 Brune - cross 311
1 A. No.
2 Q. I ask you the same question. Why not?
3 A. We spent a lot of time thinking about appellate issues, but
4 we didn't think that there had been juror misconduct and
5 therefore didn't think that there was an appellate issue.
6 Q. At any time between the verdict on May 24th and the receipt
7 of the letter on June 20th, did your firm contact the Nardello
8 firm to do additional investigation about Ms. Conrad?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Why not?
11 A. I didn't think there was anything to investigate.
12 Q. At any time during these proceedings, "these proceedings"
13 meaning between the initial voir dire and today, have you tried
14 to sandbag this Court or plant error in the record as to Juror
15 No. 1, Ms. Conrad?
16 A. No.
17 MR. SHECHTMAN: No further questions, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Redirect, Ms. Davis?
19 MR. DAVIS: I assume there is no other defense counsel
20 who wishes to inquire?
21 THE COURT: Does any defense counsel wish to inquire?
22 MR. GAIR: No, thank you, your Honor.
23 MR. ROTERT: No, thank you, Judge.
24 MS. McCARTHY: No, your Honor.
25 MR. DAVIS: Just briefly, your Honor.
MR. DAVIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010051