Judge Dismissed Passantino Defamation Suit Against Weissmann
A federal judge ruled that testimony supported accusations that Stefan Passantino coached a witness to lie.
Updated on Sept. 21, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should lawyers be held personally accountable when they guide clients to provide misleading testimony?
Judge Loren AliKhan dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Stefan Passantino against Andrew Weissmann. The court determined that transcripts support accusations that Passantino instructed a witness to provide misleading testimony during January 6 Select Committee depositions.
Why it matters
The ruling concludes that Passantino failed to meet the legal standards for defamation. The judge found that the evidence supported the underlying claim that the lawyer coached a witness to feign a lack of memory.
The lawsuit, which persisted for nearly two years, was dismissed after a federal judge reviewed transcripts of depositions involving Cassidy Hutchinson.
The players
Stefan Passantino
He is a lawyer who represented witness Cassidy Hutchinson during January 6 Select Committee depositions.
Andrew Weissmann
He is a legal analyst and attorney who was the defendant in the defamation lawsuit.
Loren AliKhan
She is the federal judge who presided over the case and authored the dismissal ruling.
Cassidy Hutchinson
She is a former aide who provided testimony to the January 6 Select Committee.
Zoe Lofgren
She is a U.S. Representative who served on the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack.
The details
Judge Loren AliKhan determined that Passantino instructed witness Cassidy Hutchinson to answer questions with 'I don't recall' even when she remembered the events. The court ruled this conduct qualified as coaching, negating the grounds for a defamation claim against Weissmann.
Timeline
Stefan Passantino filed the defamation lawsuit in 2023.
Judge Loren AliKhan dismissed the case on September 21, 2026.
Political Context
The ruling addresses legal ethics surrounding the January 6 Select Committee depositions, a historical precedent for how committees handle witness testimony. Opposition advocates may argue that such rulings could influence how legal counsel prepares clients for sensitive congressional testimony.
The dismissal clarifies the legal standards regarding claims of witness coaching in high-profile political investigations. This decision may impact how citizens view the role of legal counsel in congressional hearings and the threshold for bringing defamation claims.
The takeaway
This case highlights the importance of ethical boundaries for attorneys when preparing witnesses for government testimony. Legal professionals should note that courts may closely scrutinize coaching strategies that encourage witnesses to provide false statements.
Further reading
For more information on legal precedents and judicial rulings, visit the Law section.
Live Poll
Should lawyers be held personally accountable when they guide clients to provide misleading testimony?
