Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-24077House OversightOther

Witness refuses to answer speculative questions in House Oversight hearing

The passage provides a routine procedural exchange about attorney‑client privilege and speculative questioning. It mentions a judge (Judge Marra) and a witness, but offers no concrete allegations, fin Witness cites attorney‑client privilege as reason for non‑response. Mr. Simpson attempts to compel answer and moves to strike as non‑responsive. Judge Marra is referenced as the presiding judge for t

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #021878
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a routine procedural exchange about attorney‑client privilege and speculative questioning. It mentions a judge (Judge Marra) and a witness, but offers no concrete allegations, fin Witness cites attorney‑client privilege as reason for non‑response. Mr. Simpson attempts to compel answer and moves to strike as non‑responsive. Judge Marra is referenced as the presiding judge for t

Tags

procedural-disputelegal-procedureattorney-client-privilegelegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-testimony

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 55 because Professor Cassell is not here as an expert witness and hypotheticals are inappropriate. You're calling for speculation on his part and I'm not going to instruct him not to answer, but it 1S an improper question. MR. SIMPSON: I disagree, but you can answer the question. THE WITNESS: Right. So the factual basis would -- we are setting aside attorney/client communications, right? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm asking: What would you tell the judge? A. Right. So that -- that's speculative. I don't think I can give a fair answer at this point because that would have involved going back to my client and carving out what kinds of things we were going to present to Judge Marra in light of the posture of the case at that point. So it's a speculative question. I would have -- let me just, without going into any attorney/client privileged communications, I would have provided an ample factual basis for those allegations. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.