Opinion ID: 2464461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

Text: [¶ 21] Mr. Baker's argument in Docket No. S-10-0230 does not merit detailed discussion. He sought the e-mail correspondence only to support a complaint that he intended to file with the Wyoming State Bar against the Wyoming Public Defender's Office. Given these circumstances, the district court was correct in observing that [t]here may be other venues in which Mr. Baker would be entitled to obtain the information he sought, but his motion was not appropriate in the context of his ongoing criminal case. [¶ 22] We affirm the district court's decisions in both Docket No. S-10-0229 and Docket No. S-10-0230. BURKE, J., delivers the opinion of the Court; VOIGT, J., files a specially concurring opinion; HILL, J., files a dissenting opinion.