File
A
Document A-5767
AI Analysis
Summary: Ms. Brune is cross-examined about the decision-making process regarding a juror (Ms. Conrad) who was a recovering alcoholic and potentially a suspended lawyer. She explains that her firm didn't consider raising juror misconduct issues before receiving Ms. Conrad's letter, as they didn't believe misconduct had occurred.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the thought process behind the decision not to raise juror misconduct issues during post-trial motions or as an appellate issue, and sheds light on the jury selection process and considerations.
Key Topics:
Jury selection process
Juror misconduct allegations
Post-trial motions consideration
Key People:
- Ms. Brune - Witness being cross-examined, likely a representative of the firm involved in the case
- Ms. Conrad - Juror in question, subject of misconduct allegations
- Mr. Okula - Recipient of Ms. Conrad's letter
- The jury consultant - Advisor to the firm on jury selection