21.03.2015 Views

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Acts - Dixon

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Acts - Dixon

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Acts - Dixon

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Specifically, the Perjury Indictment alleges that Ronald Lipscomb had an <strong>in</strong>terest<br />

<strong>in</strong> corporations and other entities <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> real estate development that were "do<strong>in</strong>g<br />

bus<strong>in</strong>ess with" or were "regulated by" the City; that, consequently, Defendant, as City<br />

Council President, was required <strong>to</strong> report any gift received from Mr. Lipscomb; and that<br />

Defendant made misstatements on two <strong>of</strong> her f<strong>in</strong>ancial disclosure forms when she failed<br />

<strong>to</strong> report gifts from Mr. Lipscomb. The pend<strong>in</strong>g Theft Indictment conta<strong>in</strong>s seven (7)<br />

counts charg<strong>in</strong>g theft, misappropriation by fiduciary and misconduct <strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong>fce. These<br />

supersed<strong>in</strong>g charges <strong>in</strong>volve, among other th<strong>in</strong>gs, allegations that the Defendant<br />

misappropriated <strong>to</strong> her own use certa<strong>in</strong> gift cards, some <strong>of</strong> which were allegedly donated<br />

by two Baltimore City developers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Mr. Lipscomb, and some <strong>of</strong> which were<br />

paid for by funds from the Baltimore City Hous<strong>in</strong>g Authority.<br />

In response <strong>to</strong> the Defendant's discovery request for evidence <strong>of</strong> other crimes,<br />

wrongs or acts pursuant <strong>to</strong> Md. Rule 4-263, the State Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r <strong>in</strong>dicated that such<br />

evidence was <strong>in</strong>cluded with<strong>in</strong> the materials provided <strong>to</strong> or exam<strong>in</strong>ed by the Defendant<br />

previously. <strong>Evidence</strong> relat<strong>in</strong>g specifically <strong>to</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>ancial disclosure forms at issue <strong>in</strong> the<br />

perjury case was <strong>in</strong>cluded with the materials that the State Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r made available<br />

and/or produced <strong>to</strong> Defendant. As a result, the Defendant cannot ascerta<strong>in</strong> whether the<br />

State Prosecu<strong>to</strong>r plans <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduce evidence relat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>ancial disclosure forms <strong>in</strong><br />

connection with this Theft triaL. In an abundance <strong>of</strong> caution, the Defendant is mov<strong>in</strong>g<br />

this Court <strong>to</strong> exclude any evidence <strong>of</strong> Defendant's alleged failure <strong>to</strong> disclose gifts on<br />

those forms because, whether Defendant was required <strong>to</strong> disclose such gifts, and whether<br />

the Defendant committed perjury by fail<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> so disclose on her f<strong>in</strong>ancial disclosure<br />

2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!