In a state criminal case involving money laundering, gambling and RICO claims, defendants sought information about the attorney general’s personal solicitation of a $25,000 campaign contribution from a corporate defendant The defendants sought to obtain the attorney general’s testimony that she would not have sought the donation from a business engaged in illegal activity. The defendants did not allege that the attorney general had any information about the defendants’ business, other than information provided by the defendants themselves at the meeting. The court held that the attorney general’s “opinion of the culpability of the Defendants, or lack thereof, is irrelevant and inadmissible.” The court held that although she did not enjoy unlimited executive immunity, the AG’s testimony must be necessary and relevant and unavailable from a lesser ranking official. Even though she was not attorney general at the time of the conversation, because she is now the attorney general, there must be a special need or situation compelling the testimony. Because the information sought is not relevant, the Attorney General htestimonial immunity independent of any protective order.