- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2012, to the Attorney General’s o
ffice. The government admits th
at it sought these records in
preparation for the September 12, 2012 hearing to de
termine whether a doctor should be appointed
to report on Defendant’s mental condition. Af
ter the hearing on September 12, 2012, the court
ordered Dr. Reinhold Meister to examine Defendant’
s mental condition and to
report his findings to
the court.
The government did not receiv
e the requested information on September 12, 2012, nor did it
disclose that it had issued the NMC subpoena.
Defendant learned of the subpoena on September
25, 2012 when NMC’s counsel notified him. Defe
ndant moved to quash the subpoena one day
later.
Defendant contends that it is improper to use a subpoena
duces tecum
to procure his
educational and disciplinary records and moves to
quash the subpoena in accordance with NMI R.
Crim. Pro. 17(c) because it is “unreasonable or op
pressive”. He argues th
at the government was not
using the subpoena to expedite
a trial but was instead going
on a “fishing expedition” for
documents it thought might be relevant to a comp
etency determination before a doctor had even
been appointed.
The government, on the other han
d, asserts that the subpoena
is neither unreasonable nor
oppressive. It argues that whil
e the records were or
iginally requested in
preparation for the
September 12, 2012 hearing, Dr. Meister subsequently
requested Defendant’s
school records, and
therefore they should be release
d. The government argues that the
school and disciplinary records
are evidentiary and relevant because Defendant has placed his mental state at issue, and education is
“essential” to determining competency. These
records are not otherwise available, as the
government previously sought them
to no avail. The government al
so argues that only NMC, and
not Defendant, has standing to quash the subpoena.
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The court is thus tasked with determining (1
) whether Defendant has
standing to object to
the subpoena and (2) whethe
r the subpoena is valid.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“A subpoena may...command the person to whom
it is directed to produce the books,
papers, documents or other objects designa
ted therein. The court on motion made
promptly may quash or modify the subpoena
if compliance would be unreasonable or
oppressive. The court may di
rect that books, papers, docu
ments or objects designated
in the subpoena be produced be
fore the court at a time prior
to the trial or prior to the
time when they are to be offered in ev
idence and may upon their production permit
the books, papers, documents or objects or po
rtions thereof to be inspected by the
parties and their attorneys.”
NMI R. Crim. P. 17(c).
The United States Supreme Court has set out a f
our-part test to determine the validity of a
subpoena: (1) the documents are evidentiary and re
levant, (2) they are not
otherwise procurable
reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due
diligence, (3) the party cannot properly prepare for
trial without such production and in
spection in advance of trial and
that the failure to obtain such
inspection may tend unreasonably to de
lay the trial, and (4) the app
lication is made in good faith
and is not intended as a ge
neral fishing expedition.
United States v. Nixon
, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700
(1974) (overruled on other grounds);
Commonwealth v. Castro
, No. 03-0407E (NMI Super. Ct.
Aug. 17, 2004) (Order Granting Motion
to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena
Duces Tecum
at 2-3). The
Supreme Court has further stated that a subpoena
duces tecum
is “not intended to provide an
additional means of discovery” in a criminal tria
l but rather “to expedite
the trial by providing a
time and place
before
trial for the inspection of
subpoenaed material.”
Bowman Dairy Co.
, 341
U.S. at 220.
/
//
No comments:
Post a Comment