Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document #: 616 Filed: 02/24/22 Page 128 of 130
A-5813
C2grdau4 Edelstein 356
1 THE COURT: No. My question is not whether it would
2 have come out. If it had not come out, if the Court had not
3 pressed your law firm and the government failed to raise the
4 issue, would your law firm have disclosed the information set
5 forth in the July 21 letter?
6 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
7 THE COURT: Did you ever have any discussion with
8 anyone in the firm about that?
9 THE WITNESS: I think that our, at least my, frame of
10 mind was that we didn't know they were the same person, so I
11 just didn't think that there was a waiver issue.
12 THE COURT: In the middle of jury deliberations, this
13 Court displaced Juror No. 11 because of a health emergency,
14 replaced him with an alternate after much discussion with
15 counsel and over the objection of the government, and directed
16 the jury to restart its jury deliberations. Did you give any
17 consideration at that time to raising the issue that you
18 discussed in the park on May 12 with Ms. Brune and Ms.
19 Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I continued to believe that Juror
21 No. 1 was who she said she was. That didn't occur to me, no.
22 THE COURT: Any further inquiries?
23 MR. OKULA: May I follow up on one or two questions,
24 your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009417
@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5813
AI Analysis
Summary: The court questions a witness about their law firm's disclosure practices and their consideration of raising an issue regarding Juror No. 1 during jury deliberations. The witness testifies that they didn't think there was a waiver issue and didn't consider raising the issue during juror replacement. The court and an attorney, MR. OKULA, engage in a discussion about further inquiries.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's inquiry into the law firm's disclosure practices and the handling of a juror replacement during deliberations, potentially impacting the trial's outcome.
Key Topics:
disclosure of information by law firm
juror replacement during deliberations
potential waiver issue
Key People:
- THE WITNESS - witness being questioned by the court
- THE COURT - presiding judge
- MR. OKULA - attorney
- Ms. Brune - attorney or associate
- Ms. Trzaskoma - attorney or associate
Full Text
Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document #: 616 Filed: 02/24/22 Page 128 of 130
A-5813
C2grdau4 Edelstein 356
1 THE COURT: No. My question is not whether it would
2 have come out. If it had not come out, if the Court had not
3 pressed your law firm and the government failed to raise the
4 issue, would your law firm have disclosed the information set
5 forth in the July 21 letter?
6 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
7 THE COURT: Did you ever have any discussion with
8 anyone in the firm about that?
9 THE WITNESS: I think that our, at least my, frame of
10 mind was that we didn't know they were the same person, so I
11 just didn't think that there was a waiver issue.
12 THE COURT: In the middle of jury deliberations, this
13 Court displaced Juror No. 11 because of a health emergency,
14 replaced him with an alternate after much discussion with
15 counsel and over the objection of the government, and directed
16 the jury to restart its jury deliberations. Did you give any
17 consideration at that time to raising the issue that you
18 discussed in the park on May 12 with Ms. Brune and Ms.
19 Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I continued to believe that Juror
21 No. 1 was who she said she was. That didn't occur to me, no.
22 THE COURT: Any further inquiries?
23 MR. OKULA: May I follow up on one or two questions,
24 your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009417
--- PAGE BREAK ---
C2grdau4 Edelstein 356
1 THE COURT: No. My question is not whether it would
2 have come out. If it had not come out, if the Court had not
3 pressed your law firm and the government failed to raise the
4 issue, would your law firm have disclosed the information set
5 forth in the July 21 letter?
6 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
7 THE COURT: Did you ever have any discussion with
8 anyone in the firm about that?
9 THE WITNESS: I think that our, at least my, frame of
10 mind was that we didn't know they were the same person, so I
11 just didn't think that there was a waiver issue.
12 THE COURT: In the middle of jury deliberations, this
13 Court displaced Juror No. 11 because of a health emergency,
14 replaced him with an alternate after much discussion with
15 counsel and over the objection of the government, and directed
16 the jury to restart its jury deliberations. Did you give any
17 consideration at that time to raising the issue that you
18 discussed in the park on May 12 with Ms. Brune and Ms.
19 Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I continued to believe that Juror
21 No. 1 was who she said she was. That didn't occur to me, no.
22 THE COURT: Any further inquiries?
23 MR. OKULA: May I follow up on one or two questions,
24 your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Individual Pages
Page 128 - DOJ-OGR-00009417
Page 356 - DOJ-OGR-00010096
C2grdau4 Edelstein 356
1 THE COURT: No. My question is not whether it would
2 have come out. If it had not come out, if the Court had not
3 pressed your law firm and the government failed to raise the
4 issue, would your law firm have disclosed the information set
5 forth in the July 21 letter?
6 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
7 THE COURT: Did you ever have any discussion with
8 anyone in the firm about that?
9 THE WITNESS: I think that our, at least my, frame of
10 mind was that we didn't know they were the same person, so I
11 just didn't think that there was a waiver issue.
12 THE COURT: In the middle of jury deliberations, this
13 Court displaced Juror No. 11 because of a health emergency,
14 replaced him with an alternate after much discussion with
15 counsel and over the objection of the government, and directed
16 the jury to restart its jury deliberations. Did you give any
17 consideration at that time to raising the issue that you
18 discussed in the park on May 12 with Ms. Brune and Ms.
19 Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I continued to believe that Juror
21 No. 1 was who she said she was. That didn't occur to me, no.
22 THE COURT: Any further inquiries?
23 MR. OKULA: May I follow up on one or two questions,
24 your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300