Opinion ID: 2524957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Filings Since Oral Argument

Text: After oral argument on September 8, 2005, the attorney general's office filed two Motions to Clarify statements made by Rucker earlier that day. One of the motions states that the attorney general has no qualms with the district court, rather than the attorney general, selecting the physician who would do the initial in camera review of the patient files. The attorney general simply opposes said physician(s) being appointed by petitioners who are the targets of the criminal investigation. This motion also states that the attorney general does not oppose redaction of all patient-identifying information before the district court's special counsel and physician perform the in camera review, although it asserts that Judge Anderson will need to be provided with the redacted information in order to cross-reference the files with records and evidence from other sources. The other motion, despite its caption, changes rather than clarifies certain statements made by Rucker in response to questions from members of this court during oral argument. It states in pertinent part: 1. As part of this criminal investigation and/or inquisition, respondent has sought records and information from other mandatory reporters besides the petitioners in the present mandamus action. This effort has included subpoenas for records relating to live births involving mothers under the legal age of sexual consent. 2. At oral argument, counsel was unable to directly and adequately respond to the questions from the bench specifically relating to this topic because of the secret nature of the criminal investigation and inquisition and the existence of a do not disclose order relating to the subpoenas of live birth records. It is evident that, at least in the attorney general's judgment, whatever order allegedly compelled Rucker to be less than forthright in his answers to this court's questions on September 8, 2005, had either been lifted or dissipated or overcome by a competing priority by mid-October 2005, when Kline called a press conference and announced that he had obtained the birth records of 62 babies born to girls younger than 16. The mechanism by which Kline obtained these records remains somewhat unclear, as does the reason for and timing of the press conference. We also note that petitioners, since oral argument, filed a Motion for Order Directing the District Court to Forward the Entire Inquisition Record to This Court, and that the attorney general filed a response to this motion. We deny this motion at this time, because we are able to address the issues raised in this mandamus proceeding on the record before us.