Opinion ID: 2377101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Hearing on Motion to Disqualify CHPP Counsel

Text: 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. 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 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 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 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. 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: [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.