U.S. v. Mintz
1996 WL 666784
D.Kan.,1996.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.

Michael M. MINTZ, Defendant.

Civ.A. No. 91-40045-01-DES.

March 15, 1996.

Benjamin C. Wood, Death Penalty Defense Unit, Topeka, KS, for defendant Mintz.
Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, KS, for defendant Silvers.
William K. Rork, Rork Law Office, Topeka, KS, for defendant Crawford.
Joseph D. Johnson, Joseph D. Johnson, Chartered, Topeka, KS, for defendant Walker.
Jeannine D. Herron, Topeka, KS, for defendant Wolfe.
Richard L. Hathaway, Gregory G. Hough, Office of United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for U.S.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAFFELS, District Judge:
*1 This matter is before the court on the United States' Motion to Quash Demand for Testimony (Doc. 471).
Mr. Mintz filed a Notice that Demand for Testimony has been Made Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 1621 et seq. on March 13, 1996. The defendant advised the court that he had made a demand for the oral testimony of Assistant United States Attorney Gregory Hough at the March 18, 1996, hearing in the above-captioned matter. The demand outlined that the defendant would seek information concerning communications on the part of Mr. Hough prior to execution of the plea agreement, correspondence received by Mr. Hough from government agents regarding Mr. Mintz's assistance to the government, and statements made by Mr. Hough to various agents regarding Mr. Mintz.
28 C.F.R. § 16.26 enumerates factors for determining whether production or disclosure should be made pursuant to a demand. The United States Attorney advises the court that after consideration of these factors, it has determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Hough to testify at the hearing in this matter. Consequently, the United States Attorney has not authorized Mr. Hough to testify.
28 C.F.R. § 16.23(a) provides that:
[a]n attorney shall not reveal or furnish any material, documents, testimony or information when, in the attorney's judgment, any of the factors specified in § 16.26(b) exists, without the express prior approval by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the division responsible for the case ... or such person['s] designees.
A Department of Justice employee may not testify without the approval of the appropriate department official. See Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462, 467-78 (1951); 16 C.F.R. § 16.28. The court will therefore grant the government's motion to quash the demand for the testimony of Assistant United States Attorney Gregory Hough.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that the United States' Motion to Quash Demand for Testimony (Doc. 471) is granted.
D.Kan.,1996.