← Back to home

Document A-5756

AI Analysis

Summary: The document is a transcript of Ms. Brune's testimony in a criminal case. She is questioned about discrepancies between facts presented in a letter and a brief, and her understanding of material facts uncovered before the jury's verdict. The testimony highlights potential inconsistencies in the defense's presentation of facts.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals discrepancies in the facts presented by the defense and the witness's understanding of material facts, which could be crucial in a criminal trial.
Key Topics: Discrepancy between facts presented in a letter and a brief Court's inquiry into differing versions of facts presented by defense counsel Witness's (Ms. Brune) testimony regarding material facts uncovered before the jury's verdict
Key People:
  • Ms. Brune - Witness testifying in a criminal case
  • Judge Pauley - Presiding judge in the case
Document Type
Transcript
Date
Unknown
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES004

Full Text

C2grdau2 Brune - direct 299 1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect 2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I 3 greatly regret, there is no question about that. 4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct? 5 A. Yes, that's right. 6 Q. You participated on that call, correct? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he 9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct? 10 A. Something along those lines, yes. 11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to 12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are two very 13 different set of facts, correct? 14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was 15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get 16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us. 17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if 18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to 19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very 20 different sets of facts, correct? 21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me 22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking. 23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here, 24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things 25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010039 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 713 of 130 A-5756 299 C2grdau2 Brune - direct 1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect 2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I 3 greatly regret, there is no question about that. 4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct? 5 A. Yes, that's right. 6 Q. You participated on that call, correct? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he 9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct? 10 A. Something along those lines, yes. 11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to 12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are very 13 different set of facts, correct? 14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was 15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get 16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us. 17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if 18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to 19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very 20 different sets of facts, correct? 21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me 22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking. 23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here, 24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things 25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009360

Individual Pages

Page 299 - DOJ-OGR-00010039
C2grdau2 Brune - direct 299 1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect 2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I 3 greatly regret, there is no question about that. 4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct? 5 A. Yes, that's right. 6 Q. You participated on that call, correct? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he 9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct? 10 A. Something along those lines, yes. 11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to 12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are two very 13 different set of facts, correct? 14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was 15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get 16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us. 17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if 18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to 19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very 20 different sets of facts, correct? 21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me 22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking. 23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here, 24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things 25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010039
Page 713 - DOJ-OGR-00009360
Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 713 of 130 A-5756 299 C2grdau2 Brune - direct 1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect 2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I 3 greatly regret, there is no question about that. 4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct? 5 A. Yes, that's right. 6 Q. You participated on that call, correct? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he 9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct? 10 A. Something along those lines, yes. 11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to 12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are very 13 different set of facts, correct? 14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was 15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get 16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us. 17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if 18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to 19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very 20 different sets of facts, correct? 21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me 22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking. 23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here, 24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things 25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009360