{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "50",
    "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 50 of 130 A-5735\n278\nC2GFDAU1 Brune - direct\n1 counsel, correct?\n2 A. I was.\n3 Q. And that prompted, that note prompted Ms. Trzaskoma and\n4 others in your firm to do additional research on Catherine\n5 Conrad, correct?\n6 A. That's now my understanding, yes.\n7 Q. Did you know that at the time?\n8 A. No, I don't think so. But I'm not, I really don't think\n9 so.\n10 Q. So is it your testimony here today that from 7:30 in the\n11 morning when Ms. Trzaskoma sends out the first e-mail --\n12 MR. SCHECTMAN: Judge, just for the record, that 7:30\n13 is the west coast time on the note, I'm almost certain it's\n14 10:30 and I think we can probably stipulate to that.\n15 MS. DAVIS: I'm not willing to stipulate to that, your\n16 Honor, and I'll move on, but I'm not willing to stipulate to\n17 that.\n18 A. I'm sorry --\n19 THE COURT: Why don't you put a new question to the\n20 witness?\n21 Q. So is it your testimony here today that you were neither\n22 included on the e-mail traffic nor made aware of the e-mail\n23 traffic up through the beginning of jury deliberations?\n24 A. I certainly was not included on any e-mail traffic. What\n25 I'm saying is I don't have a recollection of being made aware\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00009339",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 50 of 130 A-5735",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "278",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 counsel, correct?\n2 A. I was.\n3 Q. And that prompted, that note prompted Ms. Trzaskoma and\n4 others in your firm to do additional research on Catherine\n5 Conrad, correct?\n6 A. That's now my understanding, yes.\n7 Q. Did you know that at the time?\n8 A. No, I don't think so. But I'm not, I really don't think\n9 so.\n10 Q. So is it your testimony here today that from 7:30 in the\n11 morning when Ms. Trzaskoma sends out the first e-mail --\n12 MR. SCHECTMAN: Judge, just for the record, that 7:30\n13 is the west coast time on the note, I'm almost certain it's\n14 10:30 and I think we can probably stipulate to that.\n15 MS. DAVIS: I'm not willing to stipulate to that, your\n16 Honor, and I'll move on, but I'm not willing to stipulate to\n17 that.\n18 A. I'm sorry --\n19 THE COURT: Why don't you put a new question to the\n20 witness?\n21 Q. So is it your testimony here today that you were neither\n22 included on the e-mail traffic nor made aware of the e-mail\n23 traffic up through the beginning of jury deliberations?\n24 A. I certainly was not included on any e-mail traffic. What\n25 I'm saying is I don't have a recollection of being made aware",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009339",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Brune",
      "Trzaskoma",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Ms. Davis",
      "Mr. Schectman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00338",
      "A-5735",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009339"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}