Document 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 121 of 130 A-5806 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 349 1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was. 2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her 5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that fact? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew 8 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts 9 pursuant to an investigation, right? 10 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew 11 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the 12 brief. 13 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read 14 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts 15 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you 16 received a note, correct? 17 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I 18 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was 19 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's 20 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I 21 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused 22 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing 23 that. 24 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009410 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 122 of 130 A-5807 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 350 1 in hindsight with respect to this proceeding, but I can see 2 with hindsight now how it might be construed in the way you 3 have suggested. But at the time when we were writing it we 4 were describing what happened when we received the letter on 5 June 20th. 6 Q. Well, it was worded that way because you and Ms. Brune had 7 had a discussion previously about what you were going to omit 8 from this brief, right? 9 A. No. The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not 10 we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information 11 that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. 12 Q. And you agreed -- 13 A. We discussed it in the context of what was the standard for 14 waiver, what was the standard for juror misconduct cases, which 15 was actual knowledge. I was not focused, when we were writing 16 the brief, I was not focused on waiver. We didn't know they 17 were the same person. We just were trying to actually 18 establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a 19 long time for me to believe that they were the same person. 20 I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that 21 may be difficult for you to believe now when you're taking a 22 brief and looking at every sentence and trying to impart some 23 meaning to it or an impression that we were trying to create. 24 But that's not how we were writing it. 25 Q. Can you just answer the question that I asked? You just SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009411