Deputy-AG also refers to Means' subpoena as a fishing expedition in the memorandum in support of motion to quash.
Exactly. Time to pack away the fishing net Mr Means, and get on with the case at hand!
BUBM
And he's fishing in the wrong pond!!!
II. ARGUMENT
The scope 0f Defendant’s subpoena duces tecum is unreasonable and oppressive and requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matters and information.
Additionally, the records requested in the subpoena are not relevant to the charges pending in this Madison County case.
Rather, Defendant seeks inside information regarding pending criminal investigation into unrelated conduct.
In fact, among the records sought in the subpoena, in specific request number 9, are “[a]ny records, documents, exhibits, etc. related t0 0r intended for use by the prosecutor as evidence at tria1[.]”
Yet the subpoena is not directed t0 the Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, counsel for the State in the matter pending before the Court. Rather, Defendant served the subpoena 0n the OAG regarding an unrelated criminal investigation, Where no charges or trial are pending. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH, Page Idaho Criminal Rule 17(b) provides: For Production of Documentary Evidence and of Objects. subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated in it. The court, 0n motion, may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable 0r oppressive. I.C.R. 17(b). The decision Whether t0 quash subpoena upon motion under Idaho Criminal Rule 17(b) is committed t0 this Court’s sound discretion. State V. Joy, 155 Idaho 1, 12, 304 P.3d 276, 287 (2013).
