DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg

Cébas PAR OAS URE PAN 1 Demo PReniGiee 0 AiR DAP ab dey eL27eF dfS080 a= OwmA Ro bw Ne NNNNNNPRP RP PP ee RB UPUWUNPFPOWUOIHK oO euUN eB A-5757 300 C2grdau2 Brune - direct It's a simple question. A. The standard under McDonough is actual knowledge. We didn't know. I don't think it is material to the legal analysis. That having been said, I think if had we to do it over again, the equivalent of the July 2list letter should have been submitted alongside the brief. I missed the issue of what the government's position was going to be. Q. You're familiar, are you not, Ms. Brune, with the cases subsequent to McDonough that have held that full knowledge is not required, that defense counsel has an obligation to bring potential misconduct to the Court's attention so that the court can deal with it, correct? A. I've certainly read a lot more of the waiver cases since this whole issue has been joined. As an ethical matter, though, the standard is if the lawyer has actual knowledge of juror misconduct. We did not have actual knowledge of juror misconduct. Indeed, we believed, erroneously it now appears for certain, there was no juror misconduct. Q. I wasn't asking about the New York ethical rule that I think you're referring to, Ms. Brune. A. I'm sorry, If you asked me about an ethical matter, that's my understanding. Q. I'll withdraw the question. You acknowledged in that July 22nd telephone call that you, your firm, or defendant Parse, was differently situated than other defendants, correct? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C, (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010040