mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010040.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "300",
    "document_number": "A-5757",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct 300\n1 It's a simple question.\n2 A. The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge. We\n3 didn't know. I don't think it is material to the legal\n4 analysis. That having been said, I think if we had to do it\n5 over again, the equivalent of the July 21st letter should have\n6 been submitted alongside the brief. I missed the issue of what\n7 the government's position was going to be.\n8 Q. You're familiar, are you not, Ms. Brune, with the cases\n9 subsequent to McDonough that have held that full knowledge is\n10 not required, that defense counsel has an obligation to bring\n11 potential misconduct to the Court's attention so that the court\n12 can deal with it, correct?\n13 A. I've certainly read a lot more of the waiver cases since\n14 this whole issue has been joined. As an ethical matter,\n15 though, the standard is if the lawyer has actual knowledge of\n16 juror misconduct. We did not have actual knowledge of juror\n17 misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears\n18 for certain, there was no juror misconduct.\n19 Q. I wasn't asking about the New York ethical rule that I\n20 think you're referring to, Ms. Brune.\n21 A. I'm sorry. If you asked me about an ethical matter, that's\n22 my understanding.\n23 Q. I'll withdraw the question. You acknowledged in that July\n24 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse,\n25 was differently situated than other defendants, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010040",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct 300",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 It's a simple question.\n2 A. The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge. We\n3 didn't know. I don't think it is material to the legal\n4 analysis. That having been said, I think if we had to do it\n5 over again, the equivalent of the July 21st letter should have\n6 been submitted alongside the brief. I missed the issue of what\n7 the government's position was going to be.\n8 Q. You're familiar, are you not, Ms. Brune, with the cases\n9 subsequent to McDonough that have held that full knowledge is\n10 not required, that defense counsel has an obligation to bring\n11 potential misconduct to the Court's attention so that the court\n12 can deal with it, correct?\n13 A. I've certainly read a lot more of the waiver cases since\n14 this whole issue has been joined. As an ethical matter,\n15 though, the standard is if the lawyer has actual knowledge of\n16 juror misconduct. We did not have actual knowledge of juror\n17 misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears\n18 for certain, there was no juror misconduct.\n19 Q. I wasn't asking about the New York ethical rule that I\n20 think you're referring to, Ms. Brune.\n21 A. I'm sorry. If you asked me about an ethical matter, that's\n22 my understanding.\n23 Q. I'll withdraw the question. You acknowledged in that July\n24 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse,\n25 was differently situated than other defendants, correct?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010040",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 21st",
      "July 22nd"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5757",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010040"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}