← Back to home

Document A-5810

AI Analysis

Summary: The transcript captures the cross-examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Schectman, focusing on a conversation about a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1 and the decision not to raise a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the thought process and discussions among the attorneys regarding a potential juror misconduct issue and their decision not to bring it to the court's attention.
Key Topics: Juror misconduct investigation Discussion about a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1 Post-trial motion considerations
Key People:
  • Ms. Edelstein - witness being cross-examined
  • Mr. Schectman - attorney conducting cross-examination
  • Ms. Brune - colleague of Ms. Edelstein, mentioned in conversation
  • Ms. Trizaskoma - colleague of Ms. Edelstein, mentioned in conversation
  • Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad) - juror in a trial
  • Ms. Conrad - author of a post-trial letter
Document Type
Transcript
Date
Unknown
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES004

Full Text

C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 353 THE COURT: Mr. Schectman? MR. SCHECTMAN: Yes, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECTMAN: Q. Ms. Edelstein, on May 12th at the end of the conversation that you had on the plaza with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trizaskoma, why didn't you bring information about there being a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1, why didn't you bring that to the Court's attention? A. At some point during the conversation we had discussed whether we should bring it to the Court's attention, but after we discussed the issue and concluded that it was inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer, we didn't see a reason to bring the fact that there was a suspended lawyer with the name Catherine Conrad to the Court's attention, that there was nothing we were going to ask the Court to do at that point. Q. At any time were you trying to sandbag the Court or tamper with the record? A. No. Q. At any time between the juror's verdict on May 24th and the receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter on June 30, was there any discussion in the Brune firm about raising a juror misconduct issue as an issue on a post-trial motion? A. There was none. Q. And why not? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010093