Judge to review juvenile records of suspect in April killing of Bobby Maher Jr.

CASPER, Wyo. — On Monday, a Natrona County District Court judge struck a compromise in a dispute over whether potentially sensitive records could be released to the defense attorney of a juvenile suspect — charged as an adult — in the stabbing death of a teenager in April.

The hearing centered on whether Jarreth Joseflee Sabstian Plunkett’s defense attorney, Curtis Cheney, could access Department of Family Services records about Plunkett’s personal background through a motion called a Subpoena Duces Tecum — a Latin term meaning “you shall bring with you documents.”

The department was represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Wendy Ross, who opposed the motion.

The court hearing was the latest step in the case against Plunkett, who on June 21 pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency alongside a traditional not guilty plea for fatally stabbing 14-year-old Robert “Bobby” Maher Jr. at the Eastridge Mall on April 7.

Plunkett and alleged co-conspirator Dominique Harris, who also pleaded not guilty, remain incarcerated and are presumed innocent unless proven or pleading guilty.

Defendants who plead guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency are entitled to a mental health evaluation. On Sept. 18, District Court Judge Catherine Wilking granted the prosecution’s request to conduct the evaluation in Casper rather than at the Wyoming State Hospital in Evanston. Cheney then filed the Subpoena Duces Tecum motion, asking the Wyoming Department of Family Services to release all records for Plunkett.

The Department of Family Services responded with a motion to quash — consisting either of setting aside or voiding — the subpoena.

On Monday, Ross attended the hearing by videoconference. Plunkett accompanied Cheney. Natrona County District Attorney Dan Itzen and Chief Deputy District Attorney Blaine Nelson appeared for the state.

In the motion opposing the subpoena, Ross wrote the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to quash the subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies.”

Cheney’s motion, she wrote, did not not indicate what type of case records he and Plunkett were seeking.

Ross wrote the Department of Family Services maintains confidential records for six categories. Some of the categories have exceptions, but Cheney’s subpoena does not allege facts that apply to those exceptions. Likewise, he does not qualify as an individual to access those files, which are as follows:

• Child protection files that are released only for purposes related to the administration of the Child Protective Services Act and only to specific individuals.
• Juvenile delinquency files.
• Juvenile probation records.
• Children in need of supervision (CHINS).
• Adult protection files that may only be released to an authorized individual and may be disclosed for a purpose consistent with the Adult Protective Services Act.
• Public assistance files or welfare records that may only be released directly related to the administration of the Wyoming Public Assistance and Social Services Act.

Ross wrote that a defendant has the burden “to show that the requested documents [are] specific, relevant and not intended as a general fishing expedition,” adding that “Requesting an entire file is a fishing expedition.”

Cheney needed to make a plausible showing, with some degree of specificity, as to how the information in these records “is constitutionally material to the outcome of his case,” she wrote. “Without this showing, public interest still lies with the Department in maintaining the confidentiality of their information.”

Finally, Ross in her written response asked the court to either quash the motion or set the issue for a hearing.

Monday, she recounted these reasons for quashing the motion.

Cheney responded that accessing department records is difficult to begin with and disagreed with Ross’s characterization of what he was trying to do. “This is not a fishing expedition to dig up information,” he said.

He acknowledged that juveniles have a high degree of protection when they are charged as adults. Part of the problem was that Cheney doesn’t know what the records contain to be able to ask for something specific, he said.

Wilking said she wondered why the subpoena gave such a general outline. “I’m just not entirely clear what you’re looking for,” she said.

Cheney responded that he wanted to know if there were allegations of abuse in Plunkett’s background, notes of case workers’ investigations and records of counseling that the Department of Family Services may have received.

Itzen said he believed the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office is correct in its response to the subpoena, and echoed Ross’s take. “It sounds like a fishing expedition,” Itzen said.

Ross further explained that such records are kept confidential because of their very sensitive information that could become public in court proceedings.

However, she left an out for the court.

Ross suggested that the records could be sent to Wilking, who could then review them “in camera” — in the judge’s chambers out of public view.

Wilking said Ross doesn’t know what the Department of Family Services’ records may contain, and she reluctantly agreed to the in-camera review. She said she’s done this in the past, but sometimes has had an entire banker’s box full of documents dumped on her desk.

Wilking said she would like to receive those records, hand-delivered, in seven days.