Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03114/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATE OF KANSAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARK CALL, GLENDA WAGGONER, 

and MIKE BURCH, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

OTTO PRIVETTE; ROBERT BENTON, 

Movants-Appellees. 

APR2 2 i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

C!erl:: 

Nos. 91-3114 

91-3115 

91-3116 

(D.C. No. 90-1585-K) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before Moore, and Ebel, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District 

Judge**· 

The present action comes on before the Court upon the 

Memorandum and Order of the district court quashing the state court 

subpoenas and vacating the state court's order to show cause. We 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 

**Honorable Wayne E. Alley, United States District Judge for the 

Western Distric t of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 1
affirm the findings of the district court announced in its 

Memorandum and Order of March 19, 1991. 

In December of 1990, Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") 

Agents Otto Privette and Robert Benton ("Agents") filed, through 

an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, a 

Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas ("district court"). The Agents filed the Notice 

of Removal for the district court to determine whether the Agents 

could be held in contempt for failing to testify when subpoenaed 

by the defendants in a state criminal prosecution. 

The state court criminal action was filed against three 

defendants, who appear in the present appeal as the DefendantsAppellants ("Appellants") Mark A. Call, Glenda R. Waggoner and Mike 

Burch. The Appellants attempted to subpoena the Agents in the 

criminal case as expert witnesses who allegedly held the opinion 

that the price of the marijuana sold to the Appellants in the 

reverse sting operation was "ridiculously low." This artificially 

low price, the Appellants contended, constituted entrapment, making 

the Agents' testimony crucial to their defense. 

In the state court hearing on December 14, 1990, before Judge 

Nicholas Klein, Assistant United States Attorney Kim Martin told 

Judge Klein that the Department of Justice ( "DOJ") had directed the 

Agents not to comply with the defense subpoenas, citing United 

States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 s.ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 

417 (1951) . (Tr. of Hrng. on Mtn. to Suppress at 8.) Judge Klein 

then cited the Agents for contempt of court for failure to obey the 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 2
defense subpoenas. 

From this contempt 

district court. 

(Tr. of Hrng. on Mtn. to Suppress at 14-15.) 

citation, the Agents removed the case to 

The Memorandum and Order of United States District Judge 

Patrick F. Kelly reviewed the facts and the legal issues presented 

by the Agents in the Notice of Removal. His findings are as 

follows. 

First, Judge Kelly held that the Notice of Removal itself 

established factual and legal bases for the filing of the federal 

action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1442(a) (1), and that the federal 

district court had jurisdiction. (Mero. and Order at 2.) Second, 

he held that although information gathered by DOJ sometimes may be 

useful in legal proceedings that do not involve DOJ employees, the 

information sought by the defense in this case constituted general 

knowledge of DEA Agents unrelated to a particular investigation, 

and therefore was not able to be disclosed under 28 C. F. R. 

§ 16.24{d) (2). (Mem. and Order at 3.) 

Third, Judge Kelly stated that despite Appell ant Waggoner's 

reliance upon Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 s.ct. 1087, 84 

L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), that case did not require federal officers to 

provide general information about drug prices to indigent criminal 

defendants. (Mem. and Order at 4.) Fourth and finally, Judge 

Kelly stated that the state court was without jurisdiction to 

compel the Agents to testify, pursuant to the principles announced 

in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, supra . (Mem. and Order 

at 4-5.) Thus, Judge Kelly ruled, the subpoenas were properly 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 3
quashed and the state court's order to show cause why the Agents 

should not be held in contempt was vacated. 

In Appellants' Joint Brief, the Appellants present three 

primary issues for review by this Court: First, whether the 

district court had removal jurisdiction, and if so, whether it 

properly refused to find the Agents in contempt. Second, whether 

the district court had jurisdiction to quash the subpoenas, and if 

so, whether it properly did so. And third, whether the Appellants 

Waggoner and Burch were entitled to obtain the requested 

information in preparation of their defense, due to their indigent 

status. 

I. Standards of Review 

Attacks on a court's jurisdiction and on the adequacy of 

removal proceedings are matters of law that must be reviewed under 

a de novo standard. Matter of Tri-State Eguip .• Inc. , 792 F.2d 

967, 970 ( 10th Cir. 1986) ; United States v. Mcconney, 728 F . 2d 

1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 s.ct. 

101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). 

By contrast, review of a district court's holding regarding 

contempt of court is limited to the standard o f abuse of 

discretion. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 797 F.2d 906, 907 (10th 

Cir. 1986); V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 226 (10th 

Cir. 1979). 

I I. Removal Jurisdiction and 

Quashing of Subpoenas 

The United States Supreme Court has announced in a clear line 

of cases that where federal officials raise a federal defense 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 4
arising from their law enforcement or other official duties, the 

case should be removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1). Mesa 

v. California, 489 u.s. 121, 131-32, 109 s.ct. 959, 966-67, 103 

L.Ed.2d 99 (1989): Arizona v. Maypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242, 101 

s.ct. 1657, 1664, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981): Willingham v. Morgan, 395 

U.S. 402, 407, 89 s.ct. 1813, 1816, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969). Accord, 

Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1484 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

_U.S. __ , 111 s.ct. 559, 112 L.Ed.2d 565 (1990). 

In this Court's opinion, the action against the Agents was 

removable to determine the propriety of the Agents' refusal to 

testify. Further, the district court unquestionably possessed 

jurisdiction to quash the subpoenas, even though the state court 

subpoenas themselves did not provide an independent basis for 

removal jurisdiction. See, Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 

(9th Cir. 1986); Watkins v. Grover, 508 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 

1974). 

III. Contempt of Court 

In 1951, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the primary 

issue presented in this case: whether a state court judge can hold 

federal officials in contempt for failing to testify about 

confidential departmental information, when those officials are 

directed by their superiors not to comply with the subpoena. 

United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, supra, 340 U.S. at 467-68, 

71 s.ct. at 418-19 held that federal officials may refuse to 

testify about confidential information if so directed by their 

superiors. See also, United States Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 663 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 5
F.2d 68 (10th Cir. 1980); Smith v. C.R.C. Builders Co., Inc., 626 

F.Supp. 12, 13 (D. Colo. 1983). 

Touhy is also cited within the regulations that establish the 

procedures with which federal officials and their superiors must 

comply. See, 28 C.F.R. § 16.28. Although the Appellants claim 

that neither the Agents nor their superiors complied with the 

provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, this Court agrees 

with the district court's finding to the contrary. See, Mem. and 

Order at 3. 

IV. Expert Evidence for 

Indigent Defendants 

Lastly, Appellants Waggoner and Burch argue that they are 

entitled to the testimony of the Agents as expert witnesses, within 

the principle pronounced by the United States Supreme Court in Ake 

v. Oklahoma, supra. This Court agrees with Judge Kelly that Ake's 

narrow issue, namely a state's obligation to provide an indigent 

defendant access to a competent psychiatric evaluation provides no 

rule of decision for this case in which the broad contention is 

that an indigent defendant is entitled to free-of-charge provision 

of expert witnesses selected by the defenses for any and all 

issues. It was up to the defense to establish its entitlement and 

it has not done so. (Mem. and Order at 4.) 

V. Conclusion 

Upon a careful review of the district court's removal 

jurisdiction, ability to quash state court subpoenas, and 

jurisdiction to find that the Agents were not in contempt of court, 

we affirm the district court's holding stated in the Memorandum 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 6
and Order of March 19, 1991. Further, the Agents are under no 

obligation to testify for Appellants Waggoner and Burch, despite 

the indigent status of these Appellants. 

7 

Entered for the Court 

Wayne E. Alley 

Appellate Case: 91-3114 Document: 010110243034 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 7