← Back to home

Document A-5737

AI Analysis

Summary: The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein about Juror No. 1, speculating that she might be a suspended lawyer due to similarities between her voir dire responses and the juror note. They discussed the juror's background, including a personal injury suit, and initially downplayed the significance of the juror note.
Significance: This document provides insight into the thought process and discussions among the legal team regarding a potentially problematic juror, and may be relevant to understanding the handling of the case.
Key Topics: Discussion about Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer Review of Juror No. 1's voir dire responses Speculation about Juror No. 1's background and its relevance to the case
Key People:
  • Ms. Trzaskoma - Participant in the conversation
  • Ms. Edelstein - Participant in the conversation
  • Judge Pauley - Presiding judge in the case
  • Juror No. 1 - Juror in the case
  • The witness (Brune) - Deponent

Full Text

C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 280 1 Q. And as best as you can recall and with as much precision as 2 you can muster, what exactly did Ms. Trzaskoma say to you as 3 you were headed to 52 Duane? 4 A. So the three of us were together and Ms. Trzaskoma said 5 something to me along these lines: You know, I'm starting to 6 wonder in light of the juror note whether this Juror No. 1 7 could be the same person as this suspended lawyer. 8 And Ms. Edelstein said, "Well, what did she say in 9 voir dire?" And Theresa reminded us of the stay at home wife 10 and the education and the other aspects of the voir dire and 11 she reminded us that this person had some kind of a personal 12 injury suit in the Bronx. And at that point, I think it was 13 Ms. Edelstein, but I may have been the person who said it, one 14 of us said well, that makes perfect sense. That explains why 15 she's making references to these concepts. They must have been 16 at issue in her case, and here I'm having a little bit of a 17 hard time separating what I thought and what was said, but I 18 either thought or said, well, you know, Judge Pauley will set 19 her straight in the jury charge and, you know, it's sort of 20 just a silly note. 21 I thought that it all made sense because of the 22 personal injury suit and that no lawyer would be so dumb as to 23 think that vicarious liability or respondeat superior had any 24 place in a criminal case. 25 So then, so back to the conversation, and again I got SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010020