Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 88 of 130
A-5774
317
C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross
1 numbers?
2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
7 name.
8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the
14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
15 waiver issue?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009378
@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5774
AI Analysis
Summary: The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where Ms. Brune is being questioned by attorneys and the judge. She testifies about her firm's handling of an investigation into Juror No. 1 and their disclosure obligations. The judge asks a key question about whether her firm would have disclosed the information if the court hadn't inquired or the government hadn't raised the waiver issue.
Significance: This document reveals the testimony of Ms. Brune regarding her firm's disclosure obligations and their handling of the investigation into Juror No. 1, which is potentially relevant to the case.
Key Topics:
Disclosure of investigation into Juror No. 1
Ethical obligations of the witness's firm
Waiver issue raised by the government
Key People:
- Ms. Brune - witness
- MR. SCHECTMAN - attorney
- MS. DAVIS - attorney
- THE COURT - presiding judge
Full Text
Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 88 of 130
A-5774
317
C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross
1 numbers?
2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
7 name.
8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the
14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
15 waiver issue?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009378
--- PAGE BREAK ---
C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross 317
1 numbers?
2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
7 name.
8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the
14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
15 waiver issue?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010057
Individual Pages
Page 88 - DOJ-OGR-00009378
Page 317 - DOJ-OGR-00010057
C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross 317
1 numbers?
2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it
3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,
4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,
5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I
6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same
7 name.
8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?
10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.
12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's
13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the
14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the
15 waiver issue?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.
17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be
18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very
19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify
20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.
21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to
22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary
23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the
24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was
25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010057