← Back to home

Document 1620ser1003309

AI Analysis

Summary: The witness discusses their reaction to receiving a letter from a juror, which they found disturbing due to its tone and content. They mention discussing the letter with their partner Randy Kim and connecting it to information previously shared by Theresa Trzaskoma.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals a discussion about a juror's unusual behavior or letter, which may indicate jury tampering or misconduct, and could be relevant to the trial's outcome or appeal.
Key Topics: Jury tampering or misconduct Juror's unusual behavior or letter Investigation or discussion about a trial
Key People:
  • Susan Brune - Person being questioned or discussed
  • Theresa Trzaskoma - Person who related information to the witness
  • Randy Kim - Partner of the witness in the San Francisco office

Full Text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 109 of 130 A-5794 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 337 1 surprising and shocking to hear what a member of the jury had 2 to say. 3 I think when I first called Susan, we spoke about the 4 letter and that was our first conversation of that letter. 5 Q. And in that first conversation did you and Ms. Brune 6 discuss the feeling that what had been -- or after you received 7 the letter or reviewed the other document, that that related to 8 the exact same issue that Theresa Trzaskoma related to you on 9 May 12. When did you put that together? 10 MR. GAIR: Objection to the form of the question. 11 Unintelligible. 12 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. 13 Q. At some point did you connect the dots as to what Theresa 14 Trzaskoma told you on May 12 and the jury letter that you 15 received? 16 A. What happened next was that it took me, I sat in my office 17 for a while mulling over the letter. I then was speaking later 18 that afternoon with my partner Randy Kim in our San Francisco 19 office. I mentioned I found the note, the letter, it was very 20 disturbing to me. The tone was very odd, there are all these 21 exclamation points, the underlining, the parentheticals with 22 her speaking to herself, commenting on her own words, and it 23 just seemed so at odds with what I had observed of Juror No. 1 24 during the trial. 25 He's the one who mentioned to me, he said, well, come SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009398