Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-19359House OversightOther

Defense argues private investigator Jeffrey Epstein expert witness should be excluded in House Oversight case

The passage reveals a tactical dispute over the admissibility of a private investigator’s testimony and a FOIA response letter, hinting at potential undisclosed evidence and expert involvement. While Defense claims the private investigator (referred to as Mr. Epstein) is a certified expert, not a la Argument centers on excluding his testimony as lacking personal knowledge and being based on a FOI

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011317
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals a tactical dispute over the admissibility of a private investigator’s testimony and a FOIA response letter, hinting at potential undisclosed evidence and expert involvement. While Defense claims the private investigator (referred to as Mr. Epstein) is a certified expert, not a la Argument centers on excluding his testimony as lacking personal knowledge and being based on a FOI

Tags

private-investigatorevidence-suppressioncourt-filingevidence-admissibilitylegal-exposurehouse-oversightfoiaexpert-witnessexpert-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.
10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 H3VOGIU1 regularly with Mr. Epstein to other places. So again, we didn't get to depose him as an expert in this matter. We didn't know that he was going to be called as an expert. They're saying he's a lay opinion because he's a private investigator, your Honor. The case law says otherwise. He's been certified as an expert in these exact kind of cases. We put those in our brief. So your Honor, he is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. They're trying to put him on as a lay opinion when he's really an expert witness in this case with sufficient and sophisticated knowledge, that the jury will recognize him as someone who has expertise in this area so, your Honor, we believe he should be precluded from testifying. He has no personal knowledge, it's simply his reliance, as we understand it, on the one FOIA response letter. So your Honor, with respect to the FOIA response letter that's at issue that they are going to try to get into vidence, we've put forth in our papers, again, that's a hearsay document. It's highly prejudicial under 403. They say that it meets self-authentication, but unlike the documents that we showed, for example the 302 that have the seal on it, it has none of those qualifications. They cite to two cases, the Zamara case and the Gary case. Both of those involve getting into evidence underlying records that were produced by the government, not a FOIA letter. So what they're trying to produce is a letter that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(212) 805-0300

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.