State v. Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood

 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 100,726

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellant,

v.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
KANSAS AND MID-MISSOURI, INC.,
Appellee.


SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1.
It is the responsibility of an appellate court to consider the issue of jurisdiction sua
sponte if it is determinative of an issue before it.
2.
The State's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal was insufficient to create appellate
jurisdiction over a subpoena duces tecum directed to the Interim Director for the Center
for Health and Environmental Statistics at the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment.
3.
Interpretation of a statute raises a question of law over which an appellate court
has unlimited review. The most fundamental rule is that the intent of the legislature
governs if that intent can be ascertained. An appellate court must first attempt to ascertain
legislative intent through the statutory language enacted, giving common words their
ordinary meanings. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court does not
speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read into the statute something
not readily found in it. Where there is no ambiguity, the court need not resort to statutory
 2
construction. Only if the statute's language or text is unclear or ambiguous does the court
use canons of construction or legislative history or other background considerations to
construe the legislature's intent.
4.
K.S.A. 60-245(c)(3)(A) governs a district court's evaluation of a motion to quash a
subpoena. Its subsection (iii) states that a court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it
"requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver
applies."
5.
Under K.S.A. 65-445, reports submitted by an abortion clinic to the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment cannot be released to a district attorney. The
reports thus qualify as "other protected matter" under K.S.A. 60-245(c)(3)(A)(iii), and
any subpoena from a district attorney, insofar as it seeks production of the reports
themselves or testimony revealing their contents, must be quashed.
6.
Employees of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment may be
subpoenaed to testify in a criminal prosecution about the general practices of the agency
regarding reports submitted by abortion clinics, as well as general information about the
agency's response to an earlier inquisition.
7.
Under K.S.A. 65-445, a judge who presided over an Attorney General's inquisition
and who thus became a custodian of reports submitted by an abortion clinic to the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment cannot be ordered to bring those reports to court
to facilitate a district attorney's criminal prosecution.
 3
8.
A judge who becomes a custodian of abortion clinic patient records that have been
redacted to remove patient-identifying information and then produced in an inquisition
may be ordered to bring those documents to court to facilitate a criminal prosecution
based on those records.
9.
A judge may be ordered to produce a Memorandum Decision and a letter to
counsel arising out of an inquisition over which the judge presided to facilitate a criminal
prosecution. Special arrangements for transmission and storage of the documents may be
required if the documents are under seal.
10.
Asking a district judge to testify is a serious matter and creates sensitive problems
requiring delicate attention. Generally, absent a showing of extraordinary need, a judge
may not be compelled to testify about matters observed as a consequence of the
performance of his or her official duties.
11.
Under the unusual facts of this case, fact witness and document custodian
testimony of the judge who presided over an inquisition may be permitted on certain
subjects during a criminal prosecution arising out of the inquisition. However, the judge,
by virtue of his participation in the inquisition, is not automatically transformed into an
expert witness who may give opinion testimony on the issue of the defendant clinic's
criminal culpability.
12.
A lawyer designated by a judge presiding over an inquisition to act as special
counsel for patients whose abortion records were redacted and then produced in the
 4
inquisition may be ordered to produce his affidavit and correspondence with defense
counsel to facilitate a criminal prosecution.
13.
Under the unusual facts of this case, fact witness and document custodian
testimony of the lawyer designated by the judge presiding over an inquisition to act as
special counsel for patients whose abortion records were redacted and then produced in
the inquisition may be permitted on certain subjects during a criminal prosecution arising
out of the inquisition. However, the lawyer, by virtue of his participation in the
inquisition, is not automatically transformed into an expert witness who may give opinion
testimony on the issue of the defendant clinic's criminal culpability.
Appeal from Johnson County District Court; STEPHEN R. TATUM, judge. Opinion filed October
15, 2010. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Phill Kline, district
attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Pedro L. Irigonegaray, of Irigonegaray & Associates, argued the cause, and Robert V. Eye and
Elizabeth R. Herbert, of the same firm, were with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BEIER, J.: This interlocutory appeal is the latest in a related series of actions
arising out of an inquisition conducted by former Attorney General Phill Kline regarding
the performance of abortions in Kansas. In this case, we are asked to rule on whether a
Johnson County district judge erred in quashing subpoenas directed at various employees
of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment ("KDHE") and at Shawnee County
District Judge Richard D. Anderson and attorney Stephen W. Cavanaugh.
 5
Although the issues before us are simply summarized, their resolution is not
because they arise in a complicated factual and procedural context, revealed in fits and
starts over the life of a series of cases. Like icebergs, the appearance of the issues above
the waves is relatively benign; their mass and shape below the waves goes unnoticed or
ignored at peril.
We therefore begin by setting forth a list of the cases in the series and then a
chronology of pertinent events, taking care to guard the twin imperatives of patient
privacy and criminal prosecution that we discussed in our first opinion in these related
actions, Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson, 280 Kan. 903, 128 P.3d 364 (2006). Although
not all of the information we review below has become public knowledge since the Alpha
decision, much of it has. In addition, to the extent any of the following goes beyond what
has previously been made or become public, we take care to ensure that no privacy or law
enforcement goal is threatened. The chronology, dependent in part on documents and
transcripts never supplied to this court before this appeal, is necessary to an
understanding of our analysis and rulings.
We also emphasize that nothing in this opinion should be interpreted by the parties
as license to publish or otherwise disseminate material sealed under our previous orders
or previous orders of our district courts. As in Alpha, "[w]e caution all parties to resist"
any such impulse, "which may imperil the privacy of the patients and the law
enforcement objectives at the heart of this proceeding." 280 Kan. at 930.
THE SERIES OF CASES
● Case No. 04-IQ-03. Inquisition launched by Kline while Attorney General
filed in district court in Shawnee County ("the Inquisition").
● Case No. 93,383 in the Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Mandamus
filed by two abortion clinics regarding the Inquisition subpoenas for patient
 6
records. This petition led to this court's opinion, Alpha, 280 Kan. at 903
("Alpha").
● Case No. 97,554 in the Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Mandamus
filed by two abortion clinics regarding Kline's appearance before the 2006
election on "The O'Reilly Factor" and other alleged dissemination of
information from patient records ("the publicity mandamus action").
● Case No. 98,747 in the Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Mandamus
filed by Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-
Missouri, Inc. ("CHPP"), regarding Kline's movement of records from
Attorney General's office to Johnson County District Attorney's office. This
petition led to this court's opinion in Comprehensive Health of Planned
Parenthood of Kansas v. Kline, 287 Kan. 372, 197 P.3d 370 (2008)
("Comprehensive Health").
● Case No. 07 CR 2112. Criminal prosecution filed by former Attorney
General Paul Morrison in Sedgwick County against Dr. George Tiller, a
Wichita physician who performed abortions, which ended in an acquittal
after jury trial ("the Tiller case").
● Case No. 99,050 in the Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Mandamus
filed by Morrison against Judge Anderson seeking surrender of redacted
patient records produced in the Inquisition and left in the judge's custody
("Morrison v. Anderson").
● Case No. 07 CR 2701. Criminal prosecution filed by Kline while Johnson
County District Attorney against CHPP, which is the case underlying this
appeal ("this criminal prosecution").
 7
Other proceedings before grand juries in Johnson and Sedgwick Counties
regarding abortion providers, including one that led to a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
in this court, eventually denied, and various related disciplinary matters are not listed
above. Although some of these proceedings and disciplinary matters were
contemporaneous with the cases on the list, they had no direct effect on their pursuit or
disposition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The first crystals of the particular icebergs before us now were formed when
Kline, in his capacity as Attorney General from January 13, 2003, to January 8, 2007,
opened the Inquisition under the judicial supervision of Judge Anderson in Shawnee
County.
As part of the Inquisition, Kline and his staff obtained copies of certain reports of
abortions performed in 2003 in Kansas that were filed by clinics with KDHE. The entire
group of reports produced by KDHE has never been filed or deposited with or otherwise
disclosed to this court in this or any related action. This court is, therefore, necessarily
dependent upon other's descriptions of these items.
According to the record before us, the reports produced by KDHE do not contain
patient names, but patients are identified by numbers and other data, including age;
marital status; state, county, and city of residence; ancestry and race; level of education;
number of live and deceased children, if any; gestational age of the terminated
pregnancy; and the date the patient's abortion was performed. The reports also do not
contain the names of abortion providers, who are identified by a code number. But there
is no dispute—and no secret at this time—that the KDHE reports at issue in this appeal
are among those filed with the agency by defendant CHPP and later sought from KDHE
by Kline during the Inquisition.
 8
Kline, as Attorney General, also sent subpoenas duces tecum in the Inquisition to
obtain certain patient medical records directly from two Kansas clinics that performed
abortions. Those subpoenas, and Judge Anderson's refusal to quash or modify them, led
the clinics to file the petition for writ of mandamus in Alpha. At the time, the clinics were
referred to as Alpha and Beta; they are now known to include defendant CHPP. See
Comprehensive Health, 287 Kan. at 375.
As a result of the clinics' Alpha petition, we ruled in February 2006 that Judge
Anderson must first evaluate the soundness of Kline's interpretation of the criminal
statutes at issue to determine if there was a firm legal ground supporting the Inquisition.
See Alpha, 280 Kan. at 924. If Kline's theory passed muster, the clinics could be
compelled under the subpoenas to produce the patient medical records after redaction of
patient-identifying information, performed under the supervision of Judge Anderson and
experts to be named by him. See Alpha, 280 Kan. at 924-25.
Post-Alpha Treatment of Patient Records
After the Alpha decision, Judge Anderson's review of the Inquisition's legal basis,
and the redactions that followed, Kline and his staff received CHPP patient records for
copying on October 24, 2006. We described some of what happened in our
Comprehensive Health opinion:
"Shortly after the records were given to Kline, he and two of his subordinates,
lawyers [Eric] Rucker and Stephen Maxwell, presented Judge Anderson with a summary
of the records that Kline wanted to disclose publicly. Kline was in the final days of a
highly contentious political race to retain his position; his opponent was then Johnson
County District Attorney Paul Morrison. According to Judge Anderson, Kline—who had
argued unsuccessfully to Judge Anderson while Alpha was pending before this court that
the judge should not subject Kline to the nondisclosure provision in the subpoenas
directed to the clinics—took an 'aggressive' position on the summary and his potential use
of it. In Judge Anderson's view, Kline appeared "somewhat desperate" to counter charges
 9
advanced by Morrison in the campaign. Kline also told Judge Anderson that he did not
believe the judge could control what an attorney general disclosed to the public.
Regardless of the merit or lack of merit of that view, Judge Anderson warned Kline that
he would have trouble persuading Judge Anderson to rule in his favor on any future
inquisition issues if he publicly disclosed information from the patient records. At no
point in this discussion with Judge Anderson did Kline, Rucker, or Maxwell divulge any
plans for television or other public appearances concerning the inquisition or its results.
"On November 3, 2006, the Friday before election day and before Kline's
subordinates returned the originals of the redacted records to Judge Anderson, Kline was
a guest on a nationally televised program, 'The O'Reilly Factor.' During the broadcast,
host Bill O'Reilly suggested that O'Reilly had been made privy to the contents of the
redacted records. Kline later testified that he 'certainly' considered his appearance on
O'Reilly's show to be appropriate despite this court's cautionary language about publicity
in Alpha and apparently despite Judge Anderson's insistence that Kline and his
subordinates were bound by the subpoenas' nondisclosure provision. Kline testified that
he had decided to appear on the O'Reilly program because his office had been inundated
with calls about his intentions, and he wanted to alleviate fears that his office was seeking
identities of patients.
"Kline's appearance on 'The O'Reilly Factor' prompted the clinics to press Judge
Anderson to hold Kline in contempt before election day. They also filed [the publicity
mandamus action under seal] with this court on the day before election day, November 6,
2006, seeking a stay of the inquisition, sealing of the records from Kline's office, and
deposit of the records with a special prosecutor or master appointed to investigate any
leak of information from, or other mishandling of, the records.
"Morrison defeated Kline in the attorney general's race. Approximately 2 weeks
after the election, Judge Anderson declined to launch contempt proceedings against Kline
in connection with the O'Reilly show. Although Judge Anderson would later testify that
he was "very upset" with Kline for putting himself in a position allowing O'Reilly to
claim he had seen the redacted patient records, Judge Anderson had concluded after
questioning Kline, Maxwell, and Kline investigator Tom Williams under oath that Kline
 10
had not given the records to O'Reilly, if, in fact, O'Reilly had seen them at all. We denied
the clinic's November 6 petition for writ of mandamus on November 30, 2006.
"During the 2 weeks after the elections, Kline, Rucker, Maxwell, and Williams
shared information from the redacted patient records and other inquisition results with at
least three potential medical experts, including Dr. Richard Gilmartin, a pediatric
neurologist from Wichita, and Dr. Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist from Baltimore,
Maryland. Rucker had obtained Gilmartin's name from a representative of Kansans for
Life; he would later testify that he may have told the representative about the nature of
the records. Kline had obtained McHugh's name from a representative of Women
Influencing the Nation. Both Kansans for Life and Women Influencing the Nation are
anti-abortion advocacy organizations.
"The record before us reflects that Gilmartin took no notes and that no patient
records were left with him. Maxwell and Williams evidently left copies of patient records
and other inquisition documents with McHugh. These other documents included
pregnancy termination information obtained from [KDHE,] which, when cross-
referenced to patient records and/or other sources mined by Kline and his subordinates
during the inquisition, enabled Kline to identify patients by name. The record reflects that
the time period when Kline and his subordinates were seeking the cross-reference data
was before or during the pendency of Alpha. The record is unclear on exactly when
McHugh returned the records left with him or whether he first made copies before
returning the set he had been given. Judge Anderson had not required Kline or his
subordinates to obtain confidentiality agreements from any persons to whom the records
themselves or information within them was disseminated; and Kline and his subordinates
did not take this step on their own.
"On December 11, 2006, Republican precinct committee members in Johnson
County selected Kline to complete Morrison's term as Johnson County District Attorney,
once Morrison was sworn in as Attorney General on January 8, 2007.
"It was in this time frame that Kline and Maxwell conversed with Judge
Anderson about Kline's desire to send the patient records produced by the clinics in the
inquisition to other prosecutors, specifically mentioning Shawnee, Sedgwick, and
 11
Johnson Counties. According to Judge Anderson, Kline and Maxwell did not tell him
how this would be accomplished; they did not tell him that the records would not be
received in Johnson County until Kline had taken office there; they did not tell him that
they also would send the records from WHCS, a clinic in Sedgwick County, to Johnson
County. Kline did tell Judge Anderson that the transformation of his Attorney General
inquisition into a Johnson County District Attorney investigation would be 'seamless.'
Judge Anderson would eventually testify that, during one of his conversations with
Maxwell about the movement of patient records to Johnson County, he told Maxwell,
'Just be sure that you do that in a very orderly and regular sort of way.'
"Shortly before leaving the Attorney General's office, on December 20, 2006,
Kline filed charges in Sedgwick County against Dr. George Tiller of [Women's Health
Care Services of Wichita, P.A. (WHCS)]. Kline supported the charges with an affidavit
from McHugh, an affidavit from Williams, and information from the redacted patient
records. The following day, District Judge Paul Clark dismissed the Sedgwick County
charges at the request of Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston.
"On December 27 or 28, 2006, Kline announced that, as Attorney General, he
would appoint Wichita lawyer and anti-abortion activist Donald McKinney as a special
prosecutor. The clinics filed a joint motion for a protective order with Judge Anderson,
seeking to ensure that the patient records produced in the inquisition would remain with
Judge Anderson and in the Attorney General's office on Kline's exit from that office. The
record reflects that Judge Anderson received this motion on Wednesday, January 3, 2007,
but he did not rule on it immediately. Judge Anderson did, however, tell Maxwell that he
wanted a full and accurate written report on where all copies of the patient records were
as of the time of the transition between Kline and Morrison at the Attorney General's
office.
"Although Kline later testified that he directed Rucker to transport the records
from the Attorney General's office to Johnson County in mid-December 2006, the actual
physical movement of the records did not begin until the Friday before Morrison was
sworn in as Attorney General, January 5, 2007, and did not end until Kline had been in
office as the Johnson County District Attorney for several weeks. In the intervening time,
the patient records were stored in more than one automobile; in Maxwell's residence; and,
 12
from January 8, 2007, until mid-February 2007, in the dining room of an apartment of
another investigator, Jared Reed. The several weeks that the records sat in Reed's dining
room included the day that elapsed between the point when Reed's employment with
Kline's Attorney General's office ended and the point when his employment by Kline's
Johnson County District Attorney's office began.
"On Friday, January 5, 2007, the same day that Rucker signed a 6-month contract
with McKinney, McKinney's fees to be funded by up to $25,000, apparently from the
budget of the Attorney General's office, Williams removed all of the patient records
obtained through the inquisition from the Attorney General's office, along with additional
investigation materials and records obtained from other agencies, and placed them in a
state-owned vehicle. This Friday was to be Maxwell's last day of work for the Attorney
General's office. The following day, Saturday, January 6, Williams delivered the records
and other materials to Maxwell's residence.
"At Maxwell's residence that day, Maxwell and Williams sorted the records for
distribution to various places. At some point that day, Williams contacted Reed, who
came to Maxwell's residence and witnessed this process. Maxwell also was preparing a
Status and Disposition Report, the written report Judge Anderson requested. The patient
records and other materials were then locked in the trunk of a state-owned vehicle
Williams was driving. Williams returned a set of materials to the Attorney General's
office, not including any CHPP or WHCS patient records, and left the rest of the
materials sorted earlier at Maxwell's house in the vehicle. The vehicle spent the rest of
that weekend parked in a secure state parking lot.
"Shortly after 8 a.m. on Monday, January 8, 2007, the day Morrison was to be
sworn in as Attorney General and Kline sworn in as Johnson County District Attorney,
Williams and Reed met at the Shawnee County courthouse. They left five boxes of
investigation materials at Judge Anderson's chambers, as well as a copy of the Status and
Disposition Report. Williams and Reed also left several boxes of materials, including
patient records, at Shawnee County District Attorney Robert D. Hecht's office.
"After these two distributions had been accomplished, Williams received a
telephone call from Rucker, who had spoken to Kline that morning before Kline was
 13
sworn in as Johnson County District Attorney. Kline had called Rucker to make sure that
the patient records would be available in Johnson County and told Rucker for the first
time that the materials going there needed to include records from WHCS as well as from
CHPP. Kline indicated to Rucker that Judge Anderson had given permission for this to
occur. Rucker, in turn, told Williams that the records headed for Johnson County needed
to include the records from WHCS as well as CHPP. Williams expressed surprise and
displeasure with what he apparently viewed as a last-minute change in his instructions
and because the Status and Disposition Report produced and signed by Maxwell and left
earlier that morning with Judge Anderson did not state that the WHCS records would go
to the Johnson County District Attorney's office. According to Williams, Rucker told him
that Kline had nevertheless ordered this action and that Kline had spoken to Judge
Anderson about it. Williams asked for written confirmation of this order.
"After the call from Rucker, Williams and Reed had to retrieve the patient
records that had already been left at Hecht's office. On Rucker's instruction, they then
took the records to a downtown Topeka photocopy store. Although Reed's and Williams'
recollections vary slightly, apparently Reed began making copies of the WHCS records
for use by Kline as Johnson County District Attorney (at the expense of the Attorney
General's office) while Williams returned the state automobile they had been using. After
the copying was completed, Williams and Reed returned the set meant for Hecht to his
office. All of the material intended for the Johnson County District Attorney's office was
then transported in Reed's personal automobile and delivered to Reed's apartment, where
it was placed in his dining room.
"According to the record, at 3:43 that afternoon, several hours after all of the
distribution steps were completed and Morrison had been sworn in as Attorney General,
in apparent compliance with Williams' request for written confirmation of the earlier
order, Rucker sent an electronic mail to Williams. It stated: 'Per the direction of AG
Kline, I am directing you to copy all medical files and AG Kline is directing the copies be
delivered . . . to the District Attorney for the 10th Judicial District before noon . . . K.
Rucker Chief Deputy Attorney General (sent at 9:30 am)[.]'
"Although Kline's subordinates had placed at least three boxes of materials
connected to the inquisition at the Attorney General's office before they left it, the precise
 14
content of these boxes cannot be determined at this stage because no specific inventory of
them was created at the time. We understand, however, as mentioned above, that the
boxes contained no copies of the patient records obtained from CHPP or WHCS." 287
Kan. at 378-84.
Judge Anderson's Response filed in the publicity mandamus action in this court
included expressions of his views on the validity of Kline's legal theories regarding
inadequate record-keeping and reporting by CHPP. These opinions apparently arose out
of the judge's observations regarding the redacted patient records as produced. Per Alpha,
Judge Anderson had appointed Topeka lawyer Stephen W. Cavanaugh as special counsel
for adult patients and guardian ad litem for minor patients whose records were sought in
the Inquisition to "protect against release of sensitive, confidential, and privileged
information which is not relevant to the medical procedure and/or the criminal
investigation" and to "supervise the reproduction and release of copies of all medical
records." The attachments to Judge Anderson's response in the publicity mandamus
action included three pieces of June and July 2006 correspondence between Cavanaugh
and CHPP counsel concerning the types of information that could be redacted from
patient records. Judge Anderson also attached a November 8, 2006, Cavanaugh affidavit
regarding the redaction of the patient records.
Further Proceedings Before Judge Anderson and This Court
Before and after Kline and Morrison effectively traded prosecutorial offices on
January 8, 2007, cooperation between their offices on the Inquisition and the evidence it
had uncovered can be fairly described as nil. For example, Kline alleged that Morrison
prevented Kline from having secure access and storage to the district attorney's office in
Johnson County. In addition, on March 27, 2006, it was necessary for Judge Anderson to
permit Morrison's office to make copies of the CHPP patient records in the Inquisition
files in Judge Anderson's possession because Kline had left no copies behind in the
Attorney General's office.
 15
By April 10, 2007, Judge Anderson summoned Veronica Dersch, one of the
attorneys in Morrison's Attorney General's office, to a closed Inquisition conference on
the record. He told her, among other things, that Kline and Maxwell had contacted him
about obtaining additional information regarding CHPP in the Inquisition. He again
expressed his opinion of Kline's evidence, this time on the need for a prosecutorial
evaluation of its merit. He also said that he wanted to deal with only one prosecutorial
office on the Inquisition.
The next day, when Kline and several other representatives of the Johnson County
District Attorney's office and several representatives of Morrison's Attorney General's
office appeared before Judge Anderson for another closed Inquisition hearing, Judge
Anderson again offered his opinion on Kline's legal theories. Despite his compliments to
Kline, however, Judge Anderson stated that Morrison's office would control the
Inquisition from that day on. He said to Kline:
"Let's make sure that we have an understanding from this point forward. I do not
consider the inquisition to be owned by you. When you lost the election and there was a
new administration that came on, my interpretation is that Attorney General Paul
Morrison and his assistants are in control of the investigation. . . .
. . . .
"They own the investigation now as the Kansas Attorney General."
Judge Anderson nevertheless deferred ruling on a Morrison request to order
Kline to return copies of CHPP patient records. Judge Anderson noted that Kline
was free to launch a new inquisition in Johnson County, "[b]ut that does not seem
to be in the interests of justice to slow an investigation, to impair the ability to
prosecute crimes."
 16
When Judge Anderson issued a formal ruling rejecting Morrison's request for
return of Kline's copies of the CHPP patient records and other original investigative
materials on April 18, 2007, he repeated his statements from the April 11 hearing. Given
Kline's assertion that he had evidence to support his belief that crimes had been
committed, Judge Anderson's Memorandum Decision said: "The public interest would
not be reasonably advanced and could even be impaired by ordering the return of medical
records."
Judge Anderson also rejected a similar request from CHPP on May 15, 2007,
refusing to order Kline to return his copies of patient records to the clinic. CHPP then
filed its sealed Comprehensive Health petition for writ of mandamus in this court against
Kline on June 6, 2007. It was this mandamus action that focused on the irregularity of
Kline's transfer of clinic patient records and other Inquisition files from himself as
Attorney General to himself as Johnson County District Attorney. Large portions of the
file in Comprehensive Health were eventually unsealed by this court by order dated May
2, 2008.
Meanwhile, Morrison sent a clearance letter to CHPP counsel on June 25, 2007,
stating that he had decided not to file charges against the clinic and that he was closing
the Inquisition Kline had pursued. On July 9, 2007, Morrison filed a motion with Judge
Anderson, seeking return of all Inquisition files in Judge Anderson's possession; and, on
July 10, 2007, Morrison wrote to Judge Anderson, informing the judge that he was
closing the Inquisition.
Two days later, CHPP counsel Pedro Irigonegaray appeared unannounced at Judge
Anderson's chambers, seeking surrender of the CHPP patient records in Judge Anderson's
custody. Judge Anderson refused counsel's request.
Judge Anderson then sent a letter to Morrison and Kline, dating it July 13, 2007.
The letter formalized Judge Anderson's refusal to turn CHPP patient records over to
 17
CHPP counsel and his ruling against Morrison on the motion for return of patient records
and other Inquisition files in the custody of Judge Anderson. The judge emphasized that
any patient records in his possession were redacted and secure. He also said that
"collateral investigations" regarding the management of the records were yet to be
resolved. He apparently was referring to Comprehensive Health in this court and at least
one investigation that had been initiated by the Disciplinary Administrator. Judge
Anderson further stated that Kline had informed him that the investigation of CHPP
continued in Johnson County, based on Kline's allegations that CHPP improperly
redacted information from the patient records produced and that some records "may have
been fabricated." Judge Anderson said he had resisted opening a second inquisition for
Kline in Shawnee County and had told Kline any allegations "could be explained to
another judge" in Johnson County. Regardless, Judge Anderson wrote, he believed "the
records as originally produced by [CHPP] should be maintained by this Court until
transferred to another Court having jurisdiction over any investigation and charges and/or
until all collateral disputes and investigations have been resolved." In a second letter sent
the same day to Morrison only, Judge Anderson also refused to surrender patient records
from WHCS that were produced in the Inquisition.
Five days later, Morrison filed a motion to intervene in Comprehensive Health in
this court; his motion ultimately was granted.
Morrison also filed his own sealed mandamus action against Judge Anderson in
this court, Morrison v. Anderson, on August 2, 2007. Morrison argued that, given the
Inquisition's closed status, Judge Anderson no longer had jurisdiction nor a reason to
maintain court custody of documents the Inquisition had generated. (Large portions of the
file in this case were eventually unsealed by this court by order dated May 2, 2008.)
On September 25, 2007, after Morrison had been permitted to intervene in
Comprehensive Health, Morrison filed a sealed Memorandum in Support of CHPP's
 18
petition accusing Kline of engaging in improprieties in the transfer of patient records
from the Attorney General's office to the Johnson County District Attorney's office. The
Appendix to the Memorandum included, among other items, a copy of Maxwell's Status
and Disposition Report; transcripts of the April 10, 2007, Inquisition conference between
Judge Anderson and Dersch as well as the April 11, 2007, Inquisition conference; Judge
Anderson's April 18, 2007, Memorandum Decision; Judge Anderson's July 13, 2007,
letter to Kline and Morrison; Judge Anderson's July 13, 2007, letter to Morrison alone;
and a transcript of a deposition of Reed, which described Kline's transfer of clinic patient
records to Johnson County. The filing of this Memorandum and Appendix led to this
court's October 5, 2007, order in Comprehensive Health, providing that no further
copying and/or dissemination of records obtained through subpoenas to the clinics during
the time Kline had served as Attorney General could be effected without further order of
this court. An exception was set forth for copying or dissemination "as required for the
pursuit of a law enforcement investigation or court proceeding."
Beginning of This Criminal Prosecution and Continuing Mandamus Actions
As Johnson County District Attorney, Kline filed this action against CHPP on October
17, 2007. District Judge James F. Vano ordered the complaint and any documents filed with it to
be placed under seal. Counts 1 through 23 of the complaint allege felony violation of K.S.A. 21-
3711 through making of a false information. Counts 24 through 49 allege misdemeanor failure
to maintain a record required to be kept by an abortion provider under K.S.A. 65-6703(b)(5).
Counts 50 through 78 allege misdemeanor failure to determine fetal viability before
performance of late-term abortions under K.S.A. 65-6703. Counts 79 through 107 allege
misdemeanor unlawful performance of late-term abortions in violation of K.S.A. 65-6703. All of
the counts in each group are identical from count to count except as to document numbers and
patient numbers designed to identify the particular abortion that is the focus of each.
 19
On October 19, 2007, Judge Anderson filed his sealed response to the Morrison v.
Anderson petition. To justify his refusal to release Inquisition patient records to the
Attorney General's office, Judge Anderson described his observations of the patient
medical records produced by the two clinics, saying "returning evidence to CHPP and
WHCS at this point in time would unacceptably increase the risk that the evidence could
be lost, destroyed or compromised while active investigations and prosecutions are
[ongoing]." He further stated that it appeared "KDHE reports [received from CHPP],
which are required by law to be filed and maintained for five years, do not match copies
obtained from KDHE." Moreover, he said that he had permitted Kline to keep copies of
the CHPP patient records because they raised
"substantial factual and legal issues about CHPP compliance with the law . . . . The recent
disclosures of possible false writings, which in context could mean that somebody may
have committed a felony in an attempt to cover up a misdemeanor, convinces the District
Court that no hasty decision should be made about management of the files which would
risk loss or destruction of the as-filed redacted medical files of CHPP."
On October 24, 2007, this court appointed Chief District Judge David J. King of
the First Judicial District to conduct an evidentiary hearing and produce a report
containing recommended findings of fact for Comprehensive Health, the mandamus
action focused on Kline's transfer of records. Specifically, Judge King was directed to
obtain responses to 17 questions concerning Kline's handling of patient records. Judge
King conducted a 5-day evidentiary hearing in November and December 2007. When
given notice by Judge Anderson that he had been subpoenaed to testify in the Judge King
proceeding, this court did not intervene to prevent or limit Judge Anderson's
participation. In addition to Judge Anderson, witnesses at the hearing included Kline and
certain of his subordinates. Judge King filed his report in Comprehensive Health on
January 10, 2008.
 20
Hearing on Motion to Disqualify CHPP Counsel
In this criminal prosecution, on January 16, 2008, then Chief Judge Stephen R.
Tatum in Johnson County heard District Attorney Kline's motion to disqualify defense
counsel Irigonegaray and Robert V. Eye. Although the motion is not in the record before
us, a sealed transcript of the hearing is. Despite the sealing of the transcript, it is clear that
the hearing was open to the public. For example, at one point Judge Tatum admonished
Kline not to show an enlargement of a previously sealed document to members of the
public in the gallery, including a person focusing a television camera. Kline called both
Judge Anderson and Cavanaugh to testify at the hearing on the motion to disqualify.
The subpoena duces tecum directed to Judge Anderson to secure his testimony and
the availability of certain documents at the hearing also is not in the record before us. But
the hearing transcript again can be relied upon to identify at least some of the documents
Judge Anderson brought to court that day. Among them were copies of KDHE reports
produced by the agency in the Inquisition. Judge Anderson testified that these KDHE
reports remained in the same form as when they were produced by the agency.
In addition, Judge Anderson brought copies of the patient records produced by
CHPP in the Inquisition after our Alpha decision. He testified that there were particular
pages within each record that CHPP represented to be copies of reports it submitted to
KDHE on the patients' abortions. These pages were added to the redacted patient records
after CHPP's initial document production in the Inquisition because special counsel
Cavanaugh inquired about missing written determinations of fetal viability.
Kline attempted to introduce both the KDHE reports and the CHPP patient records
into evidence during Judge Anderson's testimony, but CHPP objected to the documents
becoming part of the public record of the case. Judge Tatum deferred ruling on the
objection.
 21
While Judge Anderson was on the witness stand, Kline also attempted to elicit
testimony about Judge Anderson's mental process in overseeing the Inquisition, e.g., why
and how he had made probable cause determinations in anticipation of search warrants
that were contemplated before the subpoenas were issued in the Inquisition. These lines
of inquiry usually drew successful relevance objections from CHPP's lawyers. Judge
Anderson testified without objection, however, that his contacts with Kline and his
subordinates in the spring of 2007—i.e., after Kline and Morrison traded positions but
apparently before Judge Anderson told Kline and his subordinates that Judge Anderson
would have no more interaction with the Johnson County District Attorney's office on the
Inquisition—prompted Judge Anderson to make a comparison of the reports produced by
KDHE and the CHPP-produced documents that had been described as copies of the
KDHE reports. Judge Anderson testified that Kline had expressed concerns about what
Kline viewed as over-redaction and possible manufacturing of documents that were then
represented as authentic. Judge Anderson then told Kline from the witness stand: "When
you raised that issue, it was perceived by me as a very serious issue and I sought an
independent evaluation of a part of the records to confirm whether there was a question
that represented a real problem or not."
On further questioning by Kline, Judge Anderson reviewed particular pages of the
CHPP patient records. He also reviewed an August 21, 2006, letter from Irigonegaray to
Cavanaugh that described the particular pages as copies of KDHE reports earlier
submitted to the agency by CHPP. It was this description as copies upon which Kline
focused, apparently wishing to rely upon differences between the pages and the reports
produced in the Inquisition by KDHE to support the felony charges in this criminal
prosecution.
On cross-examination by CHPP counsel Eye, Judge Anderson testified that,
despite the redactions in the CHPP patient records, an individual patient and her family
members could still use the records to discern the identity of the patient. He also said that
 22
he had made no determination whether any alleged discrepancies in the records were the
result of something counsel had done. Judge Anderson then elaborated on his earlier
reference to his own independent investigation:
"[B]ecause of how [Kline and Morrison] were treating one another and all of the
controversy surrounding this matter, I took it on myself to ask a detective from the police
department in Topeka to do a windshield of . . . records . . . and give me an opinion as to
whether the documents appeared to be photo copies [sic] of one another. She confirmed
that there was a question about the records and that it was – appeared to be a photocopy
of one another. So at that point in time, I just did nothing more because the two
prosecutors had the information.
"What happened next in time was I had an opportunity to have a conversation
with Veronica Dersch from Paul Morrison's office. She confirmed that she was aware of
the questioned record issue. This was a conversation that I had down in Wichita during
our judicial conference.
"Very quickly after that, Mr. Morrison declared that he was not going to do any
further investigation of [CHPP], closed the investigation and represented publicly that
there was no evidence of wrong doing [sic]. A few days after that he filed a motion to
return the records of [CHPP] to [CHPP].
"Before I had an opportunity to even rule on that, I – Mr. Irigonegaray came to
my office, expecting to pick up the records. I said, 'Well, there's a problem with the
record.' And he looked confused. And I said, 'Let me show you.' And I showed three
records and I said, 'These look like they are the same record and until this gets cleared up
I am just going to sit tight on the records.' Mr. Irigonegaray left the office without the
records. And then in a few days, it was probably two or three weeks later, Attorney
General Morrison filed a mandamus action against me to try to disgorge me of the
records.
"I had notified everyone that there was a questioned record. I had written a letter
and . . . distributed it to Mr. Kline, Mr. Morrison, the disciplinary administrator, the
Supreme Court Chief Justice and said there's a problem with these records[.] I am going
 23
to sit tight. And I sat down like an old mule and just was going to sit on that until
everything was cleared up. And that's where we have been during the pendency of the
mandamus. So I have made no determination that anybody did anything wrong.
"I have had a chance to review the records themselves and compare them with
the records that were produced by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
originally. These records that were produced by the Attorney General's office, or with the
subpoenaed 609 records for the court's retention, do not match the records that are
represented to be the KDHE reports that have been attached to the medical file that was
reviewed by the physicians and used and relied on in their report to the court. That is the
transaction as I recall it.
. . . .
"When I spoke to Mr. Irigonegaray, I pointed out there was a problem. And, you
know, I have described this as he looked at me like my golden retriever does when he
doesn't understand. He looked surprised. And I have known him for 25 years and truly he
was surprised. He said, 'You're unpredictable.' And as a judge, you don't like to be called
unpredictable because you like to be very deliberate about your rulings.
"I have known him for so long, I did what I probably should not have done, but
for the relationship, I pulled these records from the file and I said, 'Pedro, look at these
records. There is a problem.' And I said, Mr. Morrison probably shouldn't have written
that clearance letter like he did.' Mr. Irigonegaray said, 'It looks like this is going to last
for a while.' And I said, 'Yeah.' And that was the end of the conversation.
"I have not tried to make a determination as to whether the lawyers cooked the
books. I've known you too long. You wouldn't do that. I don't know what happened in
this production. But I do know that these records and the records that were produced with
the medical record are not the same."
Kline called special counsel Cavanaugh as his next witness in the hearing on the
motion to disqualify defense counsel in this criminal prosecution. Cavanaugh described
his role in the Inquisition and said that, once CHPP had made agreed-upon redactions in
 24
its patient records pursuant to Alpha, it produced the records to the district court in June
2006. Judge Anderson then placed the records in the custody of Cavanaugh, who
reviewed them with two physicians appointed by Judge Anderson. This review resulted
in Cavanaugh's August 2006 contacts with CHPP counsel to inquire about missing
written findings on fetal viability in certain records. Cavanaugh testified about these
contacts and the correspondence evidencing the exchange, including statements to him by
CHPP counsel Eye that such findings were documented on the KDHE reports submitted
to the agency by CHPP. According to Cavanaugh, Eye also told him that the reports were
kept separate from patient records in a secure file, and he and Eye agreed that CHPP
would send copies of them to Cavanaugh. Once that was done via the August 21, 2006,
letter from Irigonegaray to Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh ensured that the new pages were
inserted into the patient records by matching patient numbers.
This testimony was followed by a flurry of objections related to Kline's alleged
use of the hearing to create premature publicity on his theories of prosecution. In
response, Kline asserted that he was trying to demonstrate that the representations made
by Eye and Irigonegaray went to the heart of the State's case on missing written
documentation of fetal viability determinations and on whether CHPP had engaged in
felony making of false writings by manufacturing "copies" of KDHE reports in response
to Cavanaugh's questions. Kline argued that Irigonegaray's letter enclosing the additional
pages from CHPP was not a mere transmittal letter:
"It doesn't say here are the documents you requested. It says here are documents that are
copies of original filings with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. And
that is not the case. It also claims that these documents are needed as a demonstration of
non-viability. That goes to the crux of this State's case in the entirety of its complaint
against [CHPP]. We allege that those documents are false information. There are specific
references to the nature and how these documents were prepared and maintained by
counsel. Certainly, stipulations are available. But the State has the right to pursue this
evidence."
 25
In addition to identifying the series of August 2006 letters between himself and
CHPP counsel, Cavanaugh testified about the contents of a September 10, 2007, affidavit
executed by him, which described CHPP's production of patient records. The affidavit
included the statement that the patient records originally produced "did not have a
documented referral from a physician nor a finding that the fetus was not viable." After
CHPP counsel were permitted to gather the additional reports from their client and
convey them to Cavanaugh, the omissions were cured, Cavanaugh said, and it was his
"understanding and that of the physicians reviewing the records . . . the copies of pages
. . . provided to us by . . . Irigonegaray were in fact photocopies of the page[s] from the
actual report[s] filed with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for each
respective file."
As with Judge Anderson, the record before us does not contain a copy of the
subpoena duces tecum directed at Cavanaugh to secure his testimony and certain
documents at the hearing on the motion to disqualify defense counsel. However, it is
apparent from the transcript that he had brought copies of his August 2006
correspondence with CHPP counsel and his September 10, 2007, affidavit with him when
he came to court.
At the conclusion of Cavanaugh's direct examination, Kline again offered for
admission the State's exhibits that had been reviewed with Judge Anderson and
Cavanaugh. On defense objection, Judge Tatum again deferred his ruling.
When CHPP counsel declined to cross-examine Cavanaugh, Kline announced that
he had no further witnesses on the motion, and counsel were permitted to make their
arguments.
Kline again repeated the State's theory of prosecution on the 23 felony counts in
the complaint, as well as his reasons for believing that CHPP counsel Eye and
Irigonegaray would be State witnesses:
 26
"[CHPP] provided documents pursuant to subpoena and represented them to be copies of
original documents filed with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment . . . and
. . . those documents are not, in fact, actual copies of the original files but were
manufactured pursuant to that subpoena.
. . . .
"[T]he State will provide evidence at trial that the records produced pursuant to
subpoena are copies of the very same document over and over.
. . . .
". . . But the State does not want a motion after trial claiming a conflict [between
CHPP and its counsel] when the State intends to call their counsel as witnesses. So a
waiver on the record with full knowledge is important.
"[T]hey are material witnesses to a largely disputed fact. You heard the dispute
here today."
Judge Tatum denied Kline's motion to disqualify. Most important for purposes of
this appeal, the judge also ordered that all of the exhibits marked and/or offered by Kline
be returned to the person who brought them to court for the hearing. Thus none of the
documents referenced by Judge Anderson and Cavanaugh during their testimony became
a part of the public record of this criminal prosecution at that time. Judge Tatum
emphasized that, at the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Vano's seal order remained in
place.
Two weeks later, on January 31, 2008, Steve Six was sworn in as Morrison's
successor in the Attorney General's office.
 27
Preliminary Hearing Subpoenas and This Court's Protective Order
As an April 7 and 8, 2008, setting for the preliminary hearing in this criminal
prosecution approached, Kline issued another subpoena duces tecum to Judge Anderson.
The subpoena required Judge Anderson to bring with him all KDHE reports produced in
the Inquisition; 29 CHPP patient records produced in the Inquisition; a Cavanaugh
affidavit for which no date was given; eight pieces of correspondence between
Cavanaugh and CHPP lawyers from May, June, and August 2006; Judge Anderson's
Memorandum Decision dated April 18, 2007; and one of his July 13, 2007 letters,
presumably the one written to Kline and Morrison that dealt with CHPP's patient records.
On March 24, 2008, also in preparation for the preliminary hearing, Kline issued a
subpoena duces tecum to Dr. Elizabeth Saadi, KDHE's Interim Director for the Center for
Health and Environmental Statistics. It called for her testimony and required her to bring
to court certified copies of KDHE reports filed with the agency by CHPP regarding 23 of
the 29 abortion patients whose records had been obtained from CHPP. KDHE filed an
objection and motion to quash the subpoena 4 days later, arguing that it was prevented
from producing the reports filed with it by CHPP because K.S.A. 65-445 forbade
disclosure to the Johnson County District Attorney.
On April 2, 2008, the eve of the hearing on KDHE's motion, Kline faxed two
additional subpoenas to KDHE. Each was titled "duces tecum" but did not list any
documents to be brought to the preliminary hearing by the witness. One was directed to
KDHE's records custodian and one to KDHE Chief of Vital Statistics Data Analysis
Gregory Crawford.
The record before us contains an unsealed transcript of the April 3, 2008, hearing
on KDHE's motion to quash before Judge Tatum. KDHE, Kline, and CHPP agreed at the
hearing's outset that Judge Tatum and the parties also could take up the two later
 28
subpoenas faxed to KDHE as part of the motion hearing. Kline clarified that the two later
subpoenas were intended to call for testimony only, despite their duces tecum labels.
At the hearing, the lawyer for the KDHE said that no witness from the agency
could authenticate the KDHE reports produced by the agency in the Inquisition as true
and correct copies of the reports submitted to the agency by CHPP without doing a
comparison of the two sets of documents. The agency was unwilling to do such a
comparison unless ordered to do so because of the limitations of K.S.A. 65-445.
For his part, Kline asserted during the hearing that he had no need for the
documents listed in the Saadi subpoena because he already had them; rather, he only
needed Saadi to authenticate his set as true and correct copies of the reports submitted to
the agency by CHPP. Kline represented that the two later subpoenas to the KDHE
records custodian and Crawford were intended to obtain testimony that KDHE complied
with his request for documents in the Inquisition. Kline argued that nothing prevented
him from sharing the KDHE reports he had gathered under K.S.A. 65-445 as Attorney
General with other law enforcement agents or prosecutors, including himself as Johnson
County District Attorney. He also argued that he could put the produced documents into
evidence in this criminal prosecution through an investigator or Judge Anderson.
Judge Tatum took the KDHE motion to quash under advisement. He also
continued the preliminary hearing previously set for April 7 and 8 until May 27 and 28,
2008.
Meanwhile, on the same day as the motion to quash hearing before Judge Tatum,
Judge Anderson filed a Notice of Collateral Proceedings and Receipt of Subpoena for
Records in Morrison v. Anderson, the case in this court seeking Judge Anderson's
surrender of Inquisition documents. Judge Anderson attached a copy of the subpoena
issued by Kline for the April 7 and 8 preliminary hearing. The same day, Six learned of
the preliminary hearing subpoena and filed an emergency motion for protective order in
 29
Morrison v. Anderson. Six sought further court control of records but did not ask this
court to stop Judge Anderson from testifying at the preliminary hearing in this criminal
prosecution.
On April 4, 2008, unaware of Judge Anderson's and Cavanaugh's January 2008
testimony in the hearing on the motion to disqualify CHPP counsel, and unaware that the
January 7-8 preliminary hearing had been continued the previous day by Judge Tatum,
this court issued a protective order in Morrison v. Anderson. We directed Judge Anderson
to safeguard exclusive possession of "inquisition records maintained by him" and not to
appear as a witness in this criminal prosecution "until further order of this court."
On April 18, 2008, after Judge Anderson had received our April 4 protective order
in Morrison v. Anderson, he issued a similar protective order under the Inquisition case
number so that Cavanaugh would not be forced to testify or produce documents for the
preliminary hearing in this criminal prosecution. We have neither information in the
record before us nor statements or arguments from counsel concerning how Judge
Anderson had continuing jurisdiction in the Inquisition, which the Attorney General had
purported to close the previous summer.
Also on April 18, 2008, Judge Anderson gave written notice via letter to Kline of
our April 4, 2008, protective order in Morrison v. Anderson. On April 21, 2008, Kline
nevertheless issued a new subpoena duces tecum to Judge Anderson to appear and
produce documents at the continued preliminary hearing in this criminal prosecution on
May 27 and 28, 2008. The subpoena commanded Judge Anderson to bring with him (1)
copies of any and all KDHE report forms regarding the Inquisition; (2) copies of the 29
patient records from CHPP; (3) a copy of his April 18, 2007, Memorandum Decision; and
(4) a copy of one of his July 13, 2007, letters, again apparently the one of the two dealing
with CHPP.
 30
Also on April 21, 2008, Kline filed in this criminal prosecution an unsealed and
untimely Response to the KDHE motion to quash that had been heard on April 3; he did
not serve the Response on the other parties, and there is no explanation on the record
before us for this violation of Supreme Court and local court rules. Kline argued that
K.S.A. 65-445 should not be construed to prevent him from getting the documents listed
in the subpoena because the statute would then prevent exactly the enforcement of
abortion regulation that the legislature intended to allow. He also asserted, apparently
referring to Judge Anderson's and Cavanaugh's testimonies at the January 16 hearing on
the State's motion to disqualify, that he had already demonstrated the relevance of the
documents and the seriousness of the issue.
The next day, April 22, 2008, Kline issued a subpoena duces tecum to Cavanaugh.
It commanded that Cavanaugh bring with him to the continued preliminary hearing on
May 27 and 28, 2008, (1) his September 10, 2007, affidavit; (2) a copy of Eye's letter to
him dated August 14, 2006; (3) a copy of his letter to Eye dated August 15, 2006; and (4)
a copy of Irigonegaray's letter to him, dated August 21, 2006.
On April 24, 2008, Judge Tatum held another hearing in this criminal prosecution,
this time on defendant CHPP's motions to strike, to have Kline held in contempt, and to
dismiss. The motions were prompted by Kline's attachment of Judge Anderson's April 18,
2007, Memorandum Decision, which CHPP believed to be sealed in the Inquisition, to
Kline's April 21 Response to KDHE's motion to quash, as well as the Kansas City
newspaper's subsequent publication of information contained in the Memorandum
Decision. Judge Tatum, had, during the April 3 hearing, declined Kline's invitation to
review that Memorandum Decision and had placed the copy offered to him by Kline,
unread, in a sealed envelope; Judge Tatum also had declined Kline's offer to contact
Judge Anderson to check on the sealed or unsealed status of the Memorandum Decision.
Judge Tatum denied CHPP's motions, instead reinforcing Judge Vano's seal order and
 31
directing the parties to deliver copies of anything to be filed in the clerk's office first to
his chambers for review.
On April 28, 2008, Judge Tatum issued a written order quashing the March 24
preliminary hearing subpoena duces tecum to Saadi. Although the parties had agreed to
take up the two later KDHE subpoenas, i.e., those to the records custodian and Crawford,
at the April 3 hearing on KDHE's motion to quash, Judge Tatum's order did not address
either.
A little over one week later, on May 2, 2008, this court unsealed portions of the
record and court file in Comprehensive Health and Morrison v. Anderson. Also, believing
that Judge Anderson had given Attorney General Six and his subordinates access to the
entire Inquisition file by then, this court issued an Order to Show Cause why Morrison v.
Anderson should not be dismissed. Our May 2 order also continued our April 4 protective
order in force, save an amendment to permit Six to respond to discovery requests in the
Tiller case.
On May 8, 2008, KDHE filed a motion to clarify Judge Tatum's April 28 order in
this criminal prosecution, seeking a ruling on whether the subpoenas to its records
custodian and Crawford also had been quashed.
On May 16, 2008, Judge Anderson filed a motion for protective order in this
criminal prosecution on behalf of himself and Cavanaugh.
Five days later, in this criminal prosecution, Kline filed a motion to reconsider
and/or clarify Judge Tatum's order quashing Saadi's subpoena. He also filed a motion to
intervene in Morrison v. Anderson in this court, arguing that his motion was timely
because he had just become aware of the April 4 protective order when portions of the
record in that case were unsealed. This statement was inconsistent with the date of Judge
Anderson's letter to Kline. Kline's motion to intervene also inaccurately asserted that
 32
before May 7, 2008, he had not been "previously noticed or made aware of the nature of
any proceedings" in Morrison v. Anderson. Kline had actually been served with a motion
to consolidate Comprehensive Health and Morrison v. Anderson in September 2007. As
support for intervention, Kline also included arguments on the merits of this criminal
prosecution, invoking Judge Anderson's earlier expressed opinions and Cavanaugh's
September 10, 2007, affidavit. Kline also argued that our April 4 protective order
conflicted with our October 5, 2007, protective order entered in Comprehensive Health,
which made an exception to dissemination of clinic patient records for the pursuit of a
law enforcement investigation or court proceeding.
Kline responded to Judge Anderson's motion for protective order in this criminal
prosecution on May 27, 2008. He again based the bulk of his arguments on opinions
Judge Anderson had expressed about the merits of the case against CHPP, as well as
special counsel Cavanaugh's statements regarding missing viability determinations and
reliance on CHPP counsel's description of the documents transmitted to Cavanaugh in
late August 2006. As part of his effort to rely on Judge Anderson's expressions of opinion
on the quality of Kline's evidence, Kline also mentioned that Judge Anderson had already
testified at the January 16, 2008, motion to disqualify hearing and that Judge Anderson
had shown the documents gathered by Kline to a Topeka police expert. Support for the
Johnson County felony charges, Kline asserted, "simply" required "a comparison of the
original [KDHE reports] and the . . . reports that criminal defendant claimed w[ere] kept
'in a separate secure file' and . . . were actual copies of the original report filed with
KDHE." He further contended that the Johnson County misdemeanor charges were
supported by the lack of viability determinations and emergency findings in the patient
medical records produced by CHPP in the Inquisition.
Also on May 27, 2008, Judge Tatum heard KDHE's motion to clarify, Kline's
motion for reconsideration, and Judge Anderson's motion for protective order in this
criminal prosecution. The transcript of this hearing is unsealed in the record before us. A
 33
Kline representative argued at the hearing that the subpoenas to the KDHE records
custodian and Crawford were intended to bring witnesses to the preliminary hearing to
testify generally about how KDHE reports are received and maintained and how the
agency adds any markings to them. He said that the State also "theoretically" would have
KDHE representatives compare the documents obtained from KDHE in the Inquisition
and testify whether they are the same as the documents filed with KDHE by CHPP. Judge
Tatum questioned whether KDHE personnel would be able to testify to that fact without
having the originals of the reports in front of them and characterized a subpoena asking
them to bring reports submitted by CHPP and KDHE for purposes of comparison as
having a distinction without a difference from a subpoena asking them to bring such
reports for admission into evidence.
Counsel for Judge Anderson, and, by extension, Cavanaugh, relied on this court's
April 4, 2008, protective order. In response, Kline argued that the April 4 protective order
should not control because testifying posed no undue burden and impaired no privilege.
In addition, Kline said, Judge Anderson had already testified in the January hearing on
the motion to disqualify CHPP's counsel and Judge Anderson's testimony on the KDHE
reports was necessary because of the opinions he had expressed on that evidence.
Counsel for CHPP objected that Judge Anderson could not serve as an expert witness on
his client's culpability, a position with which counsel for Judge Anderson agreed. Judge
Tatum asked Kline to explain Judge Anderson's role in the prosecution's case against
CHPP. Kline responded that Judge Anderson would "not authenticate, necessarily." And
he again, provoking repeated objections, recited Judge Anderson's previously expressed
opinions on the quality of Kline's evidence. Finally, Judge Tatum heard the remainder of
Kline's proffer on why Judge Anderson and Cavanaugh could provide relevant evidence
in this criminal prosecution at the bench and on a sealed record not included in the
transcript in the record on appeal.
 34
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Tatum ruled that this court's April 4
protective order in Morrison v. Anderson
"does not say that Judge Anderson is never to be a witness over here. It says he is not to
appear . . . until further order of the court. . . .
. . . .
"[W]e have set the prelim hearing over. When we will get a ruling, a decision or
when there's a further order of Supreme Court, I can't say. But we will wait for that.
" . . . I will follow that order. At this time I will quash the subpoenas for Judge
Anderson and Mr. Cavanaugh . . . for the information requested and for their testimony as
requested at this time. When we get further direction from the Supreme Court then we
will proceed accordingly."
On June 2, 2008, Judge Tatum signed an order quashing the subpoenas to the
KDHE records custodian and Crawford. He also denied Kline's motion for
reconsideration of his earlier decision on the Saadi subpoena.
The next day, Six filed his Response opposing Kline's motion to intervene in this
court's Morrison v. Anderson case. He pointed out several misstatements in Kline's
motion, and argued that it was untimely. Six pointed out that his motion for protective
order had not sought to prevent Judge Anderson's testimony in the preliminary hearing in
this criminal prosecution, only to prevent further distribution of patient medical records
by Kline. Six also argued that Kline's intervention motion was insufficient because of its
failure to attach a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which Kline sought to
intervene. Judge Anderson endorsed Six' arguments against Kline's intervention through a
Response filed June 6, 2008.
 35
Also on June 6, 2008, Kline filed his Notice of Interlocutory Appeal to the Court
of Appeals in this criminal prosecution, challenging Judge Tatum's order "suppressing
evidence and enjoining any person from the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment from testifying about any topic entered on May 27, 2008."
This court denied Kline's motion to intervene in Morrison v. Anderson on July 3,
2008.
Court of Appeals Show Cause and Transfer to This Court
Later in July, the Court of Appeals ruled after a show cause proceeding that its
jurisdiction over the appeal in this criminal prosecution extended only to Judge Tatum's
rulings arising from the May 27, 2008, hearing. At the time, the Court of Appeals
understood this to mean it could review only the rulings on the two later KDHE
subpoenas. At the Court of Appeals suggestion, on August 7, 2008, Kline's office filed a
pleading demonstrating that Judge Tatum also had ruled on the subpoenas to Judge
Anderson and Cavanaugh as part of the May 27, 2008, hearing. Kline did not, however,
take issue with the Court of Appeals' decision that it lacked jurisdiction over the Saadi
subpoena. The brief of appellant, filed in this criminal prosecution on September 9, 2008,
also did not challenge this aspect of the appellate jurisdiction decision.
This court transferred this interlocutory appeal from the Court of Appeals on
December 22, 2008.
On January 29, 2009, while this interlocutory appeal was awaiting a May 2009
oral argument, this court dismissed Morrison v. Anderson. The dismissal order was silent
on the status of the April 4, 2008, protective order that had been entered in that case. At
oral argument before this court, counsel from the Johnson County District Attorney's
office, where Kline had been replaced by Stephen M. Howe, said he did not know
whether the April 4 protective order remained in effect.
 36
DISCUSSION
In order to begin our analysis of Judge Tatum's rulings on the subpoenas for
witnesses to appear and bring documents to the preliminary hearing in this criminal
prosecution, we must first consider the felony charges brought by the State and the legal
theories the State has advanced to support them.
For Counts 1 through 23, the only felony counts, the State appears to rely entirely
on what Judge Anderson and Cavanaugh understood defense counsel Irigonegaray to say
in his letter when producing documentation of CHPP's written determinations of fetal
viability. The charges hinge on Irigonegaray's description of the items as copies of
reports submitted previously by CHPP to KDHE. The State hopes to demonstrate that the
documents are not in fact copies of the KDHE reports by comparing them to the reports
in the KDHE's files, and it suggests that the "copies" produced by CHPP may have been
created only after special counsel Cavanaugh raised an issue about their absence. For this
reason, the State needs authenticated copies of the reports filed by CHPP as they exist in
KDHE's files, which it will then compare to the items produced by CHPP to Cavanaugh.
It is also important to note, as an initial matter, that a typical inquisition does not
lead to the supervising district judge becoming a custodian of documents produced in
response to subpoenas. In the ordinary case, a district judge merely authorizes certain
investigative tools, e.g., subpoenas or search warrants; and any documents or other
physical evidence gathered through use of those tools are deposited with the prosecutor
or law enforcement agencies. Given the unique character of Kline's abortion-related
inquiry, and possibly prompted in part by the safeguards put in place by this court in its
Alpha decision, Judge Anderson did become the custodian of certain documents produced
in the Inquisition leading to this criminal prosecution, including the redacted patient
records produced by CHPP and, apparently, the reports submitted by CHPP to KDHE
and then produced by KDHE. We note in passing that there appear to have been breaks in
 37
Judge Anderson's custody. For example, on October 24, 2006, Kline's staff was permitted
to take the clinic patients' redacted records from Judge Anderson and make copies. At
another point, Morrison's staff was permitted to do likewise. But we are not asked to
address the significance of those breaks in this appeal, and we do not do so.
Saadi Subpoena Duces Tecum
The Saadi subpoena duces tecum called for her testimony as well as the
production of certified copies of 23 KDHE reports of induced pregnancy termination
pertaining to the patients whose abortions are the subject of the felony counts in the
complaint.
Consideration of the subpoena duces tecum directed to Saadi requires us first to
discuss the scope of our jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal. Neither party discusses
jurisdiction in its brief. However, it is the responsibility of this court to consider the issue
sua sponte, if necessary. State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 294, 196 P.3d 369 (2008).
As the Court of Appeals observed before transfer, the Notice of Interlocutory
Appeal in this criminal prosecution was insufficient to create appellate jurisdiction over
the Saadi subpoena because it came too late. The State's pleading filed August 7, 2008, in
response to the Court of Appeals' order to show cause was sufficient to demonstrate the
existence of appellate jurisdiction over the subpoenas directed at Judge Anderson and
Cavanaugh but not over that directed to Saadi. Thus, although counsel for both parties
appeared to assume the existence of such jurisdiction at oral argument before this court,
we do not reach the merits of either side's arguments on the Saadi subpoena duces tecum.
Judge Tatum's ruling on that subpoena stands undisturbed.
Crawford and KDHE Records Custodian Subpoenas
These two later KDHE subpoenas require us to address three preliminary points.
 38
First, the State's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal was timely and specific enough to
create appellate jurisdiction over the Crawford and KDHE records custodian subpoenas.
The State's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal was filed on June 6, 2008, within 10 days of
the May 27, 2008, hearing before Judge Tatum and explicitly referenced that hearing.
Second, as mentioned above, the subpoenas to Crawford and the KDHE records
custodian were titled "Subpoena Duces Tecum" but listed no documents to be brought to
court. In addition, Kline assured Judge Tatum that the titles of the subpoenas were in
error and that they were not meant to command the production of documents by either
witness.
Third, some of the topics on which Kline intended to have these witnesses testify
are clear and some less so. It is clear that the State wished to call Crawford and the
records custodian to testify generally to the agency's practices regarding reports
submitted by abortion providers such as CHPP, presumably including the forms used and
other information about means of submission and storage. Kline and one of the other
attorneys from his District Attorney's office also represented that the State would put on
evidence from these witnesses about any markings made on the reports by agency
employees. Kline also wanted testimony from a KDHE witness to show that KDHE
responded to the Inquisition during his term as Attorney General by producing copies of
reports submitted by CHPP on the 23 abortions underlying the felony counts in the
complaint.
It is somewhat less clear from the record before us whether Kline also intended to
use these two subpoenas to secure testimony comparing the reports as they currently exist
in KDHE's files, i.e., those called for in the Saadi subpoena, to those Kline obtained from
KDHE in the Inquisition, i.e., those called for in the subpoena to Judge Anderson. It is
also somewhat less clear whether Kline also intended to use the two later KDHE
subpoenas to obtain testimony on the comparison between one or both of the sets of
 39
reports from KDHE to the reports as produced in the Inquisition by CHPP, once
Cavanaugh inquired about written determinations of fetal viability. From the record
before us, it is certain Kline intended to get comparison testimony from Saadi. And it is
evident that Judge Tatum believed this to be one of Kline's goals with the two other
KDHE witnesses as well. In addition, at oral argument before this court, counsel for the
State asserted that Saadi and a KDHE records custodian would serve the same
evidentiary purposes for the State. In the discussion below, we therefore assume that
Kline intended, and the State still intends, to use Crawford and/or the KDHE records
custodian to compare sets of documents, one of which consists of CHPP reports as they
currently exist in KDHE's files.
The statute governing Judge Tatum's evaluation of the motion to quash filed by
KDHE is K.S.A. 60-245(c)(3)(A), which reads in pertinent part: "On timely motion, the
court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it: . . . (iii)
requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver
applies."
Neither KDHE nor CHPP has claimed that the reports as they currently exist in
KDHE's files or their contents are privileged. However, both have argued that the reports
and their contents are "other protected matter" because they are covered by K.S.A. 65-
445. That statute states in pertinent part:
"(a) Every medical care facility shall keep written records of all pregnancies
which are lawfully terminated within such medical care facility and shall annually submit
a written report thereon to the secretary of health and environment in the manner and
form prescribed by the secretary. . . .
"(b) Each report required by this section shall include the number of pregnancies
terminated during the period of time covered by the report, the type of medical facility in
which the pregnancy was terminated, information required to be reported under K.S.A.
65-6703 and amendments thereto if applicable to the pregnancy terminated, and such
 40
other information as may be required by the secretary of health and environment, but the
report shall not include the names of the persons whose pregnancies were so terminated.
"(c) Information obtained by the secretary of health and environment under this
section shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed in a manner that would reveal the
identity . . . of any medical care facility which submits a report to the secretary under this
section, except that such information, including information identifying such persons and
facilities may be disclosed to the state board of healing arts upon request of the board for
disciplinary action conducted by the board and may be disclosed to the attorney general
upon a showing that a reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of this act has
occurred. Any information disclosed to the state board of healing arts or the attorney
general pursuant to the subsection shall be used solely for the purposes of a disciplinary
action or criminal proceeding. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
information obtained by the secretary under this section may be used only for statistical
purposes and such information shall not be released in a manner which would identify
any county or other area of this state in which the termination of the pregnancy occurred.
A violation of this subsection (c) is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
. . . .
"(e) For the purpose of maintaining confidentiality as provided by subsections (c)
and (d), reports of terminations of pregnancies required by this section shall identify the
. . . facility submitting such reports only by confidential code number assigned by the
secretary of health and environment to such . . . facility and the department of health and
environment shall maintain such reports only by such number."
K.S.A. 65-6703, referenced by K.S.A. 65-445(b), makes the performance of
certain abortions illegal and outlines specific reporting and record-keeping obligations:
"(a) No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus is viable
unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another physician
not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion
and both physicians determine that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of
 41
the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
"(b)(1) Except in the case of a medical emergency, prior to performing an
abortion upon a woman, the physician shall determine the gestational age of the fetus
according to accepted obstetrical and neonatal practice and standards applied by
physicians in the same or similar circumstances. If the physician determines the
gestational age is less than 22 weeks, the physician shall document as part of the medical
records of the woman the basis for the determination.
(2) If the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is 22 or more
weeks, prior to performing the abortion upon the woman the physician shall determine if
the fetus is viable by using and exercising that degree of care, skill and proficiency
commonly exercised by the ordinary skillful, careful and prudent physician in the same or
similar circumstances. In making this determination of viability, the physician shall
perform or cause to be performed such medical examinations and tests as are necessary to
make a finding of the gestational age of the fetus and shall enter such findings and
determinations of viability in the medical record of the woman.
(3) If the physician determines the gestational age of a fetus is 22 or more weeks,
and determines that the fetus is not viable and performs an abortion on the woman, the
physician shall report such determinations and the reasons for such determinations in
writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the
report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under
K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical
care facility, the physician shall report such determinations and the reasons for such
determinations in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written
report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-
445 and amendments thereto.
(4) If the physician who is to perform the abortion determines the gestational age
of a fetus is 22 or more weeks, and determines that the fetus is viable, both physicians
under subsection (a) determine in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) that an
abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of
 42
the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
function of the pregnant woman and the physician performs an abortion on the woman,
the physician who performs the abortion shall report such determinations, the reasons for
such determinations and the basis for the determination that an abortion is necessary to
preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause
a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant
woman in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for
inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and
environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not
performed in a medical care facility, the physician who performs the abortion shall
report such determinations, the reasons for such determinations and the basis for the
determination that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or
that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment
of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman in writing to the secretary of health and
environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health
and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto.
(5) The physician shall retain the medical records required to be kept under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection (b) for not less than five years and shall retain a
copy of the written reports required under paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection (b) for
not less than five years.
. . . .
"(d) . . . Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person shall not perform
an abortion that is prohibited by law.
"(e) As used in this section, 'viable' means that stage of fetal development when it
is the physician's judgment according to accepted obstetrical or neonatal standards of care
and practice applied by physicians in the same or similar circumstances that there is a
reasonable probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely outside the
mother's womb with natural or artificial life-supportive measures.
. . . .
 43
"(g) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty
of a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction of a
violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a severity level 10, nonperson felony."
Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has unlimited
review. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). The most fundamental rule
is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. Arnett, 290
Kan. at 47. An appellate court must first attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the
statutory language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. State v.
Raschke, 289 Kan. 911, 914, 219 P.3d 481 (2009). When a statute is plain and
unambiguous, an appellate court does not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it
and will not read into the statute something not readily found in it. Where there is no
ambiguity, the court need not resort to statutory construction. Only if the statute's
language or text is unclear or ambiguous does the court use canons of construction or
legislative history or other background considerations to construe the legislature's intent.
State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 796, 217 P.3d 15 (2009). This court cannot delete vital
provisions or supply vital omissions in a statute. No matter what the legislature may have
really intended to do, if it did not in fact do it, under any reasonable interpretation of the
language used, the defect is one that the legislature alone can correct. See State v.
Johnson, 289 Kan. 870, 879, 218 P.3d 46 (2009).
The relevant text of K.S.A. 65-445(c) is unambiguous. It tells us plainly that any
disclosure of the reports filed by CHPP in the form they currently exist in KDHE's files
or of their contents is strictly limited to two recipients, the Board of Healing Arts and the
Attorney General. The party now seeking disclosure of the reports or their content is the
Johnson County District Attorney rather than the Board of Healing Arts or the Attorney
General. In our view, the plain statutory limitation on disclosure in K.S.A. 65-445(c)
makes the information it covers "other protected matter" under K.S.A. 60-
245(c)(3)(A)(iii).
 44
We also note that K.S.A. 65-445(c) sets up a condition for disclosure to the
Attorney General. He or she must show "that a reasonable cause exists to believe that a
violation of this act has occurred." (Emphasis added.) This condition would have
controlled the appropriateness of KDHE's disclosure in Kline's Inquisition during his
term as Attorney General. That disclosure is not before us in this action, and we pass no
judgment on it.
The statute also sets up strict parameters on the use to which disclosed reports or
contents of reports can be used. Such information "shall be used solely for the purposes
of a disciplinary action or criminal proceeding." The KDHE Secretary may also use the
information in its statistical reports. The statute does not state that the Attorney General is
the only prosecutor entitled to use properly disclosed KDHE reports or their contents in
the pursuit of criminal justice. To the extent CHPP has urged us to read this additional
restriction into the statute here, we decline to do so. Counsel for the State is correct that
the legislature is able to design a statute to limit a prosecutor's jurisdiction, and it did not
do so in K.S.A. 65-445.
In addition, the disclosure language in the statute is more restrictive than the use
language. Disclosure to the Attorney General is conditioned on a showing of reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Chapter 65 occurred, while use of properly disclosed
reports is permitted in a criminal proceeding, apparently including prosecutions of crimes
beyond those defined in Chapter 65.
Although our analysis could end here, we note possible support for our plain-
language conclusion from two other lines of argument mentioned by the parties over the
course of this criminal prosecution.
First, events during the 2008 legislative session may have significance. Both
houses approved legislation to amend K.S.A. 65-445(c) to permit disclosure of KDHE
reports such as those under consideration here to county and district attorneys. See H.
 45
Sub. for S.B. 389 (2008) (enrolled and presented April 11, 2008). The amendment would
have become law but for the Governor's veto and a failure to override it. See Sen. J.,
April 30, 2008, p. 2023 (message from the Governor vetoing S.B. 389); Sen. J., April 30,
2008, p. 2043 (Senate unable to override veto). Because we presume that a legislative
alteration of statutory language makes a substantive change in the law, see State v.
Preston, 287 Kan. 181, 184, 195 P.3d 240 (2008), we could make the further assumption
that the 2008 legislature believed it necessary to state explicitly that a district attorney
could obtain release of KDHE reports in order for the statute to allow it. The
counterargument is that courts should avoid reading too much into legislative inaction.
Second, contrary to the oral argument of the State, the Kansas Open Records Act's
treatment of the type of KDHE reports at issue here is consistent with our limitation on
their dissemination. The Act sets out an exception permitting agency refusal to disclose
these reports to unauthorized persons. See K.S.A. 45-221(a). That exception, which had
been due to expire in July 2010, see K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 45-229(i), was instead extended
to July 2015 during the 2010 legislative session. See L. 2010, ch. 112, sec. 3.
K.S.A. 65-445(c) compels us to conclude that Judge Tatum's ruling quashing the
subpoenas directed to Crawford and the KDHE records custodian must be affirmed in
part and reversed in part.
To the extent the State wishes to call these persons to the stand as fact witnesses
on general practices of the agency regarding reports such as those filed by CHPP, it
should be permitted to do so. Such testimony does not disclose either the reports
themselves or their contents. To the extent the State wishes to call these persons to testify
on additional facts about the agency's response in the Inquisition, i.e., that it received a
subpoena or request of some sort that appeared to be in compliance with the statutory
condition or was otherwise unchallenged, and that it produced reports to Kline as
Attorney General, that type of testimony also is permissible. Again, such testimony does
 46
not disclose either the reports themselves or their contents, with the possible exception of
CHPP's code number, which has already been discussed in open court.
In contrast, neither Crawford nor the KDHE records custodian can be permitted to
testify in a way that, as Judge Tatum put it, "accomplishes indirectly what cannot be
accomplished directly" under K.S.A. 65-445. The statute prevents these witnesses from
making what is effectively a disclosure of the KDHE reports filed by CHPP as they
currently exist in the agency's files by bringing the reports to court in a district attorney's
prosecution. It also prevents these witnesses from doing a physical comparison of the
KDHE reports filed by CHPP as they currently exist in the agency's files in order to
testify that they are the same as or different from another set of documents. Likewise,
these witnesses are not permitted to testify from memory on the contents of the KDHE
reports filed by CHPP as they currently exist in the agency's files.
Judge Anderson Subpoena Duces Tecum
As outlined above, Judge Anderson's subpoena duces tecum called for his
testimony as well as the production of several items that came into his possession or were
created by him because of the Inquisition: (1) the reports submitted by CHPP to KDHE
and produced by the agency during the Inquisition; (2) the CHPP patient records
produced by the clinic during the Inquisition; (3) Judge Anderson's Memorandum
Decision dated April 18, 2007; and (4) one of Judge Anderson's July 13, 2007, letters,
presumably the one addressed to Kline and Morrison about CHPP.
The State's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal was timely and specific enough to
create appellate jurisdiction over the subpoena to Judge Anderson.
The record before us demonstrates that Kline intended to use Judge Anderson to
accomplish at least three purposes. First, he wanted Judge Anderson to give traditional
document custodian's testimony to authenticate or prove a link in the chain of custody for
 47
the KDHE reports and the patient records produced in the Inquisition. Second, he wanted
Judge Anderson to be a fact witness, one who would testify to the circumstances
surrounding the opening and continuation of the Inquisition, and, specifically, the manner
in which the submitted KDHE reports were produced by the agency and the "copies" by
defendant. Finally, Kline repeatedly made it obvious that he hoped Judge Anderson also
could function as a legal expert, repeating his earlier gratuitous opinions on the quality of
the State's proof, which Judge Anderson had expressed at various times and in various
settings throughout this and related cases.
Two initial points must precede our discussion of the document production and
testimonial components of Judge Anderson's subpoena duces tecum.
First, Judge Tatum relied entirely on our April 4, 2008, protective order entered in
Morrison v. Anderson to quash the subpoena duces tecum directed to Judge Anderson.
The State's argument—that our protective order, because it was entered in an original
action rather than in an appeal, carried no more weight than an order of another district
court, which Judge Tatum could therefore feel free to ignore—is unsupported by
pertinent authority. Failure to support a point by pertinent authority or to show why it is
sound despite a lack of supporting authority is akin to failing to brief an issue. See State
v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696, 703, 197 P.3d 837 (2008); McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central
Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 15, 61 P.3d 58 (2002).
That being said, we acknowledge that the April 4, 2008, protective order gave
Judge Anderson and Six more relief than they sought when Judge Anderson filed his
Notice of Collateral Proceedings and Six filed his emergency motion for protective order
in Morrison v. Anderson. The initial scope of the order was nevertheless necessary to
ensure the protection of patient privacy at the heart of this series of cases, given imperfect
information from both sides of the dispute and the temporal exigency of a preliminary
hearing we believed to be set for the next business day.
 48
We further acknowledge that the eventual dismissal order in Morrison v. Anderson
was silent on the continuing force of the unamended portion of the protective order,
which covered Judge Anderson's participation in this criminal prosecution. The
discussion and holdings below constitute the "further order of this court" necessary under
the protective order, correcting any initial overbreadth and otherwise refining its design
in accord with the governing law and the now-apparent subject matter.
We note that Kline earlier attempted to obtain a modification of our April 4, 2008,
protective order by moving to intervene in Morrison v. Anderson. This was the correct
initial procedural avenue to obtain relief, but he nevertheless failed to demonstrate the
appropriateness of intervention on the merits. His principal arguments appeared to focus
on his desire to have Judge Anderson testify about his previously expressed opinions on
the quality of the State's evidence against CHPP. As discussed below, a judge who
presides over an inquisition should not later serve as an expert witness on the culpability
of a criminal defendant prosecuted as a result of evidence gathered in the Inquisition. In
addition, Kline's motion to intervene had structural and substantive flaws pointed out in
Six' Response opposing it.
The modification of the April 4, 2008, protective order effected by this opinion
necessitates modification in Judge Tatum's ruling based upon it, and it is affirmed in part
and reversed in part as to Judge Anderson's subpoena duces tecum.
A. Documents
We first address the document production aspect of the subpoena duces tecum
directed to Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson cannot be subpoenaed to produce the first category of documents,
i.e., the reports produced by the KDHE during the Inquisition for the 23 patients whose
abortions are the subjects of the felony counts in the complaint. Again, the District
 49
Attorney cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he cannot do directly under the plain
and unambiguous language of K.S.A. 65-445. For this and all of the reasons discussed
above with regard to the Crawford and KDHE records custodian, Judge Anderson cannot
be ordered to produce for the District Attorney the reports that came from KDHE in the
Attorney General's Inquisition. These reports are "other protected matter" under K.S.A.
60-245(c)(3)(A)(iii), and the subpoena duces tecum is quashed as to them.
The fact that Judge Anderson apparently brought the KDHE reports to court when
he testified at Judge Tatum's January 16, 2008, hearing on Kline's motion to disqualify
defense counsel does not affect our holding on this issue. The record before us reveals no
general objection to Judge Anderson's appearance as a witness or his production of the
reports at that time, whether by Judge Anderson himself, KDHE, or CHPP; thus the
potential prohibitive effect of K.S.A. 65-445 was not before Judge Tatum. We also note
Judge Tatum did not admit the KDHE reports or any other document brought by Judge
Anderson into evidence at that hearing, and none became a part of the public file.
Counsel for CHPP did raise the issue of confidentiality when admission into evidence
was sought for the KDHE reports and the CHPP patient records.
Judge Anderson may be ordered to produce for the district attorney the CHPP
patient records produced by the defendant clinic in the Inquisition. Although these
records clearly are confidential and constitutionally protected and statutorily privileged in
their original pristine state—for all of the reasons already discussed by this court in our
Alpha decision, see 280 Kan. at 919-25—the set the District Attorney seeks here was
redacted for patient-identifying information by CHPP before they ever reached Judge
Anderson's possession during the Inquisition. There has been testimony that a patient and
her family may still be able to tell from the records if her abortion is the one documented.
Judge Tatum should conduct an in camera review of the records and order any further
redaction necessary to protect patient privacy and ensure compliance with this court's
decision in Alpha. In addition, we are confident that Judge Tatum and the parties can
 50
design any further safeguards necessary at this stage. As we already noted, the Inquisition
was unusual in that it led to an evidence custodian role for the supervising district judge.
Now, as that custodian, Judge Anderson can be ordered to bring the CHPP patient records
to court to facilitate this criminal prosecution.
Judge Anderson also may be ordered to produce for the Johnson County District
Attorney Judge Anderson's April 18, 2007, Memorandum Decision and his July 13, 2007,
letter to Kline and Morrison. (Judge Anderson's other July 13, 2007, letter regarding
WHCS records is plainly immaterial to this criminal prosecution.) As with other
documents that have previously been under seal in the Inquisition, Judge Tatum may
need to make special arrangements for the transmission and storage of these documents.
We have not been asked to determine at this time whether these documents constitute
relevant and admissible evidence for trial. We leave those questions to Judge Tatum in
the first instance, guided by the discussion of Judge Anderson's testimony below.
B. Testimony
As Attorney General Six observed in opposing Kline's motion to intervene in
Morrison v. Anderson, "asking a district judge to testify is a serious matter." United
States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1989); see also United States v.
Frankenthal, 582 F. 2d 1102, 1108 (7th Cir. 1978) (compulsion of judge's testimony
"create[s] sensitive problems requiring delicate attention"); In re Whetstone, 580 S.E.2d
447, 448 (S.C. 2003) (collecting cases). Generally, "[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary
need, a judge may not be compelled to testify about matters observed as the consequence
of the performance of his [or her] official duties." Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.,
197 F. Supp. 2d 548, 550 (S.D. W. Va. 2002). This rule allows judges to perform as
arbiters of the law without fear of having to provide later explanatory testimony, and it
prevents juries from being unduly influenced by judges' robes. Hensley, 197 F. Supp. 2d
at 550; see Inscoe v. Inscoe, 121 Ohio App. 3d 396, 418, 700 N.E.2d 70 (1997). A judge
 51
should only be required to testify if he or she possesses factual knowledge; the
knowledge is highly pertinent to the jury's task; and the judge is the only possible source
of testimony on the relevant factual information. See United States v. Roth, 332 F. Supp.
2d 565, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
This common law is reflected in part by K.S.A. 60-442, which gives a party in a
trial veto power over testimony of the presiding judge. We do not routinely permit judges
who handle preliminary hearings, for example, to testify at trial about their reasons for
concluding there was probable cause to bind the defendant over for that trial. The role of
such judges, like Judge Anderson's role here, should be and remain that of a neutral and
detached magistrate, not a member of the prosecution or defense team. It also is
consistent with our unwillingness to recall jurors to examine their thought processes in
arriving at a verdict. See K.S.A. 60-441; see also Roth, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (judge's
testimony limited to factual knowledge; testimony as to mental processes impermissible);
see also Brinkerhoff v. Bank, 109 Kan. 700, 709, 205 Pac. 779 (1921) (citing Packet Co.
v. Sickles, 72 U.S. 580, L. Ed. 550 [1866] [judge's reasons for decision not admissible
any more than those of jury]).
Given our rulings above on the reports produced by the KDHE during the
Inquisition, it follows that Judge Anderson may not testify about the contents of any of
the particular KDHE reports the subpoena duces tecum purports to order him to produce.
This prohibition includes testimony from memory about those contents, as well as any
comparison between those contents and the contents of any other sets of documents.
Again, the Johnson County District Attorney cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he
is forbidden to do directly under K.S.A. 65-445.
Judge Anderson may, however, testify as a fact witness about any relevant events
of the Inquisition that led to and followed KDHE's production of reports to Kline when
he was Attorney General.
 52
In this extraordinary case, Judge Anderson also may give traditional document
custodian testimony, insofar as it is relevant, about the redacted CHPP patient records,
i.e., authenticate them as the documents that came into his possession during the
Inquisition. He also may testify as a fact witness on how the Inquisition began and was
conducted, how the dispute leading to Alpha arose and was resolved, how he set up a
procedure to comply with Alpha's directives, and how that process was pursued. In
particular, he may testify to the limits of his personal factual knowledge about CHPP
giving the redacted patient records to him and/or Cavanaugh and events that followed.
Regarding the content of his April 18, 2007, Memorandum Decision and his July
13, 2007, letter to Kline and Morrison, it appears from the record before us and the earlier
statements of Kline in his time as Johnson County District Attorney that the State
intended to use Judge Anderson and the opinions he expressed in these documents as
substantive evidence of CHPP's culpability. We have previously described as "most
troubling" the State's invocation of a judge's prior determination of probable cause before
a jury. In re Care & Treatment of Foster, 280 Kan. 845, 858, 127 P.3d 277 (2006). The
use to which Kline repeatedly indicated he wanted to put Judge Anderson's testimony on
the judge's evaluation of the evidence against CHPP in this criminal prosecution is
similar in kind and in potential unduly prejudicial effect. It is not fact witness testimony;
and Judge Anderson was not, by virtue of his participation in the Inquisition,
automatically transformed into an expert witness who may give opinion testimony on the
issue of CHPP's criminal culpability.
But we do not know whether Kline's intention persists in Howe, Kline's successor
in the Johnson County District Attorney chair. Howe's representative at oral argument
before this court appeared unsure on this point. We therefore leave to Judge Tatum on
remand the question of what use, if any, under the strict standards set forth above, Judge
Anderson's testimony based on these two documents may be put by any party.
 53
Cavanaugh Subpoena Duces Tecum
Again, as outlined above, the subpoena duces tecum directed to special counsel
Cavanaugh called for his testimony and the production of his September 10, 2007,
affidavit and three pieces of August 2006 correspondence between him and CHPP
counsel. The correspondence followed Cavanaugh's inquiry about written determinations
of fetal viability missing from the patient records as initially produced by CHPP. One of
those pieces of correspondence is the August 21, 2006, letter from Irigonegaray to
Cavanaugh, which enclosed the KDHE reports described as "copies" and upon which
Kline said he would so heavily depend to prove the felony counts in this criminal
prosecution.
The State's Notice of Interlocutory Appeal was timely and specific enough to
create appellate jurisdiction over the Cavanaugh subpoena.
As an initial matter on this subpoena duces tecum, we note that Cavanaugh was
not covered by this court's April 4, 2008, protective order. However, when Judge
Anderson received it, he issued an order of his own, ostensibly in the Inquisition that had
already been closed by Attorney General Morrison, to prevent Cavanaugh from appearing
or producing documents in this criminal prosecution. In addition, Judge Anderson filed
his motion for protective order on behalf of himself and Cavanaugh. After hearing, Judge
Tatum apparently quashed the subpoena duces tecum directed to Cavanaugh for the same
reason he quashed the subpoena duces tecum directed to Judge Anderson.
Again, this opinion constitutes the "further order of this court" referenced in our
April 4, 2008, protective order. It appears that Judge Tatum's ruling regarding Cavanaugh
entirely rested upon our protective order, as extended to cover Cavanaugh by Judge
Anderson. Indeed, it is now apparent that our protective order would have explicitly
covered Cavanaugh as well as Judge Anderson when the order was first entered, had this
court been made aware that Cavanaugh also had been subpoenaed to appear and produce
 54
documents at the preliminary hearing. In any event, as with Judge Anderson, our
modification of order in this opinion requires Judge Tatum's ruling regarding Cavanaugh
to be affirmed in part and reversed in part.
A. Documents
Cavanaugh may also be compelled to produce the letters that passed between him
and CHPP counsel in the process of redacting and gathering CHPP patient records in the
Inquisition. We have not been asked to determine at this time whether these documents
constitute relevant and admissible evidence for trial. We leave those questions to Judge
Tatum in the first instance, guided by the discussion of Cavanaugh's testimony below.
B. Testimony
Cavanaugh may be compelled to appear as a fact witness on CHPP's production of
patient records in response to the Inquisition, including explanation of the procedure set
up by Judge Anderson under Alpha and the communications between Cavanaugh and
CHPP counsel in the summer of 2006. If, as it appears from the record as developed thus
far, Cavanaugh was a temporary custodian of CHPP patient records, he may also be
compelled to give traditional document custodian testimony. Like Judge Anderson,
however, Cavanaugh was not automatically transformed by his participation in the
Inquisition into an expert witness who may give opinion testimony on CHPP's criminal
culpability. It is unclear what the State's current intentions are in this regard, and we leave
appropriate limitations, if any, on Cavanaugh's testimony to Judge Tatum's careful
consideration on remand.
 55
CONCLUSION
This court lacks jurisdiction to address Judge Tatum's ruling quashing the
subpoena duces tecum directed to Saadi, and, insofar as this interlocutory appeal
addresses that ruling, it is dismissed.
Judge Tatum's ruling on the subpoenas to the KDHE records custodian and
Crawford is affirmed in part and reversed in part, based on K.S.A. 65-445, as detailed in
the foregoing opinion.
As to the Subpoenas Duces Tecum directed to Judge Anderson and Cavanaugh,
this opinion constitutes a further order of this court superseding the April 4, 2008,
protective order in Morrison v. Anderson. Judge Tatum's rulings on those subpoenas are
affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.