@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5907
AI Analysis
Summary: The document is a transcript of a discussion or argument where a lawyer's judgment is being criticized for failing to disclose relevant information to the court, leading to a potentially serious error. The speaker argues that the lawyer should have either investigated further or informed the court about the issue. The failure to do so is described as a 'tragic misjudgment'.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals a critical analysis of a lawyer's actions during a trial, highlighting a potentially serious misjudgment and its consequences.
Key Topics:
Criticism of a lawyer's judgment in a trial
Failure to disclose relevant information to the court
Substitution of a juror
Key People:
- The lawyer being criticized - Subject of criticism for their judgment
- The judge (referred to as 'your Honor') - Presiding over the trial and making rulings
Full Text
CAC3PARC 5
1 What's always been odd to me is when she gets to the
2 plaza, how quickly she abandons it. And whether it is because
3 she is exhausted at the end of a long trial, whether it's
4 because, as she said, she looked more at this report and she
5 thought it was more complicated, whether it was because her
6 seniors cowed her. But, as your Honor says, the discussion
7 there was superficial and never addressed the information that
8 she had accumulated over the last 12 hours. And she simply
9 goes along. And she goes along with her two seniors who don't
10 know of the Westlaw report, but say to themselves it can't be
11 her. There is no need to tell the judge. Let's go home, it's
12 been a long day, a long trial.
13 Now, we differed back at the time as to whether that
14 was a waiver or not. But there is no doubt that that is not a
15 judgment that a lawyer should have made in that situation.
16 Your Honor referred to it as a tragic misjudgment, and it was.
17 One of two things should have happened. There should
18 have been an investigation, or there should have been someone
19 saying, why me investigate? Let's just tell the Court and
20 we'll go from there. And neither of those things happened.
21 Instead, people went home, they spoke to their colleagues a day
22 or two later, and said, geez, she has the same name, but it
23 can't be her. And nobody said, well, let's do the easy thing
24 and let's tell the Court. As your Honor says, a few days
25 later, we substituted a new juror and nobody thinks to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010162