Mr. Berke

The witness, Berke, is questioned about his experience with private investigators and his response to a hypothetical scenario involving a juror lying about their identity. Berke states that he has never encountered a situation where a juror lied about their identity and is unwilling to speculate on what steps he would take in such a scenario. The questioning attorney, Mr. Okula, presses Berke for answers, but Berke maintains that he cannot provide opinions on a hypothetical situation he has never experienced.

The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a conversation regarding a suspension opinion and whether certain individuals were informed about it. The witness is unsure if Ms. Edelstein asked to see the suspension opinion, but confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma informed Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about the issue on May 12th.

The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer at Kramer Levin, who represented Raymond Craig Brubaker in the trial of David Parse. Schoeman discusses his involvement in the trial and the role of his partner Barry Berke. He is questioned about a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, read aloud by the Court on May 11, 2011.

The transcript captures the redirect examination of Mr. Schoeman, where he discusses a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1's status as a suspended attorney. The court and attorneys explore the context and significance of this conversation. The witness is then excused, and the next witness, Barry Berke, is called.

The witness, Mr. Berke, testifies about a brief conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a person with the same name as a disbarred lawyer. They discussed the person's educational background, which led them to conclude it was likely not the same person. The conversation was short, lasting only a few minutes.

The deposition transcript shows Mr. Berke being questioned about his views on an attorney's duty to report juror misconduct to the court. He hesitates to give a simple yes or no answer, instead explaining that he would consult ethics rules and commentary in such a situation.