Motion to Compel Discovery - Dixon - the Circuit Court for Baltimore ...

The grand jury subpoenas that are at issue are discoverable for a number of reasons. Firstand foremost, the issuance of the subpoenas and the absence of evidence are potentiallyexculpatory and therefore subject to discovery under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny, as wellas Maryland Rule 4-263(d)(5). In addition, the State Prosecutor has previously recognized thatsuch subpoenas are discoverable, as he has already provided numerous copies of other grand jurysubpoenas that were issued, even though no documents or testimony were produced in responsethereto. Having produced numerous copies of other grand jury subpoenas, the State Prosecutorcan hardly rely upon the "secrecy" of the grand jur to deny the production of these additionalsubpoenas. Finally, as the Cour is well aware, the grand jury subpoenas at issue are highlyrelevant to the defendant's prior motion relating to the abuse ofthe grand jury process. To theextent that those subpoenas are now relevant to a motion to be fied by the defendant, there isfurther justification for the Court to compel the disclosure, consistent with Due Processprinciples.II. The Grand Jury Subpoenas are ExculpatoryAs noted above, this case involves, among other things, the allegations that the defendantmisused certain gift cards that were allegedly donated by Baltimore City developers and fundedby the Baltimore City Housing Authority. Because gift cards do not identify the donor in anyway, and can be redeemed like cash, one of the principal issues at the trial of this case will bewhether the State can meet its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which gift cardswere purchased by which pary, to whom they were given, whether the defendant knew whichgift cards came from which source at any particular time, and whether the defendant acted withthe necessary criminal intent. Indeed, the State Prosecutor's principal investigator testifiedbefore the grand jury that "some of these (gift cards) were very difficult to trace because thereClient Documents:4844-5917-5 i 72vl IG6084-00000018/14/20093

wasn't a credit card used or there wasn't a Reward Zone card which is only applicable in BestBuy." He went on to agree that "if you buy a card in cash and you use that card in the samedenomination there is no record of who used it..." See Exhibit 5, Excerpt from Grand Jurtestimony of Special Agent John Poliks. Consequently, the absence of documents relating to thepurchase and/or distribution of gift cards is exculpatory in itself, as well as providing leads toother potential exculpatory evidence. See Gonzales v. McKune, 247 F.3d 1066, 1077 (loth Cir.2001) (absence of evidence in lab tests found to be exculpatory).Indeed, the State Prosecutor recognizes the importance of the existence vel non of anydocuments relating to the handling of gift cards, as one of the subpoenas, which he haspreviously withdrawn sought the production of such documents. See Exhibit 6, copy of GrandJury subpoena to Zoe Michael requesting production of documents relating to gift cards.Thus, the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to other paries for the production ofdocuments relating to gift cards or testimony related thereto, and the absence of suchdocumentation, is exculpatory in that it tends to negate the defendant's guilt for the offensescharged.III. The State Prosecutor Has Recognized That Such Subpoenas AreDiscoverableIn denying the production of this evidence, the State Prosecutor maintains that because nodocuments or testimony were produced in response to the grandjury subpoenas at issue, he is notobligated to produce them. This eleventh-hour explanation is belied by the State Prosecutor'sown disclosures to date. Prior to this most recent request, the State Prosecutor has provided tothe defense numerous copies of grand jury subpoenas, even though those subpoenas did notresult in the production of any documents or testimony. See Exhibit 7, copies of Office of StateClient Documents:4844-59 i 7-51 72v IIG6084-00000018/14/20094

Prosecutor Evidence Control Forms.! The State Prosecutor should now not be heard to contendthat the very same category of documents he has already produced to the defense is somehow notsubject to discovery in connection with the new charges filed. For the same reason, the StateProsecutor's attempts to hide behind the cloak of grand jury secrecy should be unavailing. Hehas already produced numerous grand jury subpoenas to the defense as noted above, and thesubpoenas that are now sought are no different from those.iv. The Grand Jury Subpoenas are Relevant to a Motion to be Filed By theDefenseAs the Cour is already aware, the defense has previously fied a motion alleging that theState Prosecutor has misused the grand jury process to gather evidence for the then-pendingcharges. Although the Court dismissed that motion as moot as a result of the State Prosecutor'sentry of the Nol Pros, the Court did not rule on the merits of that motion. The subpoenas whichthe State Prosecutor issued, one of which is attached hereto and referenced above, plainly soughtthe production of documents relating to the gift cards at issue. The State should not be able tomisuse the grand jury, dismiss the pending charge, and then conceal its misconduct by refusingto produce documents that are germane to the issue. Indeed, in the only case to address this issueby a Maryland appellate court, Erman v. State, 49 Md. App 60S, 434 A2d 1030 (Md. App 1981),the Court of Special Appeals approved of the trial court's decision to compel the production ofall grandjury subpoenas issued post-indictment.In order to ensure that the defendant has not been disadvantaged by the prosecutor'smisuse of the grand jury, Due Process dictates that the Court should order the State Prosecutor toproduce the grand jury subpoenas. As the Court of Special Appeals has noted, literal compliancei The Evidence Control Forms are documents created and maintained by the Offce ofthe State Prosecutor to recordevidence obtained in the course of its investigation. The enclosed Forms represent documents made available to thedefense, including the actual grand jury subpoenas and responsive material referenced in those forms. They havebeen redacted to eliminate personal account numbers, telephone numbers and other similar private information.Client Documents:4844-59 i 7 -5172v IIG6084-00000018/14/2009S

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify this \r!day of August, 2009, that a copy ofthe foregoing Motionto Compel Discovery was sent by electronic and regular mail to Robert Rohrbaugh, Esq., Officeofthe State Prosecutor, Towson, Maryland.~). ~~J4Dale P. 'KelbermanClient Documents:4844-59 i 7 -5172v IIG6084-00000018/14/20098

MIL E S & S Toe K B RID G E P.C.4. Any and all documents relating to the purchase and redemption of any of the gift cardsreferred to in the new indictment;5. Copies of any and all documents showing that Mr. Lipscomb's company, Doracon, orBaltimore.any related entity, was doing business with, or was regulated by, the City of6. Copies of any and all documents showing that the defendant knew that Mr. Lipscomb,Doracon, or any related entity, was doing business with or was regulated by the City ofBaltimore.Please provide us with copies of these materials promptly. If there are no documents responsiveto any category, please so state.Thank/ you for your prompt attention to this matter.Very truly yours,\~?QAL;. \t(Liv~~Dale P. KelbermanDPKllfcc: Arnold Weiner, EsquireClient Documents:4834-3333-5556v IIG60B4-OOOOI8/512009

STATE. OF MARYLANDROBERT A. ROHRBAUGHSTATE PROSECUTORHampton Plaz .Suite 410300 East Joppa RoadTowson, MD 21286-3152OFFICEOFTHE STATE PROSECUTORTelephone (410) 321-40671 (800) 695-405Fax (410) 321-3851August 6, 2009Via e-mail and regular mailDale P. Kelbennan, Esq.Miles and Stockbndgei 0 Light StreetBaltimore, Marland 21202Re: State of Marland v. Sheila DixonCase Nos.; 109210015 and 109210016Dear Mr. Kelbennan:I am in receipt ofyour correspondence dated August 5, 2009 requesting certaindiscovery. Some of the requests far exceed what is requied under the Marland RulesProcedure and, specifically, the matenal requied to be produced under Rule 4-263(d).By way of ilustation only, you request a copy of any statement Mr. Lipscomb may havemade to any other law enforcement agency. I am sure you are aware that Marland Rule4-263(c)(2) sets fort the obligations of ths Ofice, as well as defense counel. The Rulespecifically requires that ths Oficeprovide material or infonnation "that ar in thepossession or control of the attorney, members of the attorney's staff, or any other personwho either reports regularly to the attorney's office or has reported to the attorney'soffice in regard to the parcular case." Other requests seek the disclosure ofthe tralstrategy, menta impressions and work product which information is precluded byMaryland Rule4-263(g). Notwithtadingthat the requests fail to comply with theMaryland Rules of Procedure, as we have done in the past, this Offce intends toproducethe materials and documents required under the Marland Rules and consistent with ourethical obligations.ofTherefore, all of the required discovery wil continue to be made available to youon a timely basis as set fort in the Marland Rules. Whle you have been given accesspreviously to such materiai~ the discovery will include all material and documents whichare requied by Marland Rules 4-263(d) and CD.EXHIBITl~ 2ô

Pleae contat Mr. McDonoug tomorrow to arange for a mutuly convenienttime to conduct the discovery review.~~Ver tny your,Rober A. RohrbaughState Prosecutor.cc: Arold Weiner,Esqui

MIL E S & S Toe K B RID G E P.C.Dale P. Kelberman, Esquire410-385-3608dkelberman(§milesstockbridge.comAugust 11, 2009BY EMAIL AND REGULAR MAILRobert RohrbaughMarland State ProsecutorThomas M. McDonoughDeputy State ProsecutorOffice of the State Prosecutor300 E. Joppa Road, Suite 410Towson, Marland 21286Re: State v. Sheila DixonCase Nos. 109210015 & 109210016Dear Counsel:In a letter dated August 5, 2009, I requested on behalf of defense counsel an opportunity toreview various documents as par of discovery in the above-captioned cases. Pursuant to Mr.Rohrbaugh's response to me in his letter of August 6, 2009, we met at your offces yesterday toreview the material requested. At that time, Mr. McDonough advised us that he would notprovide to us copies of the grandjur subpoenas which were issued after Januar 2009, and thatthere were no documents from any such grand jur subpoenas to be made available. Mr.McDonough also advised us that he would not provide us copies of any notes of interviews ofwitnesses. Furhermore, Mr. McDonough advised us that you are not in possession of anystatements of Mr. Lipscomb taen by any other law enforcement agencies, so any suchstatements would not be available to us either.I am wrting to request that you reconsider the production of the grand jur subpoenas we haverequested. First of all, you have made available to us numerous grand jur subpoenas which predatedthe original indictment and we see no reason for you to make any kind of distinction tothose issued afer the Januar indictment. Moreover, in response to a recent motion we fied incour, you recommended that we abide by the rules governing criminal investigations. Icommend to your attention Rule 4-644(a), which requires the clerk of the circuit cour tomaintain a record of each grand jur subpoena issued in the course of a criminal investigation.10 Light Street Ba1t,~A,MD 21202-1487 . 410.727.6464 . Fax: 410.385.3700 . ww.mi1esstock ~BClient Doments:482i-613¿vljG..81111200 :øCambridge, MD . Columbia, MD . Easton, MD . Frederick, MD . McLean VA . Rockvlle, MD . i:EXHIBIT3

MIL E S & S T 0 C K B RID G E P.e.Such subpoenas are required to be filed with the clerk's office and we can obtan them from theclerk if need be.Please let us know if you will provide this additional material so that we can avoid fiing amotion to compel and engaging the judge's time unecessarily. Please let us know your decisionthis request.no later than Friday, August 14,2009. Than you for your consideration of~~Very trly yours,Dale P. KelbermanDPKllfcc: Arnold Weiner, EsquireClient Doments:4827-61 32v IIG684-18/11/200

STATE OF MARYLANDROBERT A. ROHRBAUGHSTATE PROSECUTORHampton PlazaSuite 410300 East Joppa RoadTowson. MD 212B6-3152OFFlCEOFTHE STATE PROSECUTORTelephone (410)321-4067t (BOO) 695-4058Fax (410) 321.3851Dale P. Kelbennan, Esq.Miles and Stockbridge10 Light StreetBaltimore, Marland 21202Via Regular Mail and E-mailAugust 12, 2009Re: State ofMarland v. Sheila DixonCase Nos.: 109210015-16Dear Mr. Kelbennan,While I hope it is unintentional, your sumary of the nature of the discovery requests andyour discussion of them with Mr. McDonough in our office on August 10, 2009 is, at best,misleading. Addressing your points seriatim:1. In your letter dated August 5, 2009, you requested a number of items including butnot limited to copies of all grd jury subpoenas after theorigirul indictment and copiesof any and all documents obtained pursuant to such subpoenas.On August 10,2009, you followed up these requests durng a face to facedated August 11, 2009 youtheconversation with Mr. McDonough. In your correspondencesaid that" Mr. McDonough advised us that he would not provide to us copies ofgrand jur subpoenas which were issued afer Januar, 2009...".Your characterization is accurate, but only insofar as it goes. Mr. McDonoughexplained to you that the grand jury subpoenas you had seen were in connection with thediscoverable material made available to you and obtained via those subpoenas. You arenow asking for copies of subpoenas which resulted in no testimony orevidence. Youhave cited no Maryland authority forsuch request and the documents are not thoseenumerated under the discovery rules. Absent the showing required by the Marlandrules and your compliance with those rules, this Offce will not provide the documentsrequested.2. In your letter dated August 5, 2009 you requested this offce to produce copies ofnotes taken by investigators and prosecutors. In your correspondence dated August 11,EXHIBIT.Ìl4

2009 you stated that "Mr. McDonough also advised us that he would not provide uscopies of any notes of interviews of witnesses."Once again, tre only as far as it. goes. Mr. McDonough explaied that, to the extentany interview notes existed, they were not discoverable. He also informed youand Mr.Weiner that, pursuant to our offce policy, investigators destroy their notes once theirinterview memorandum is written.3. In your letter dated August 5,2009 you requested ". . . copies of any statement byMr. Lipscomb to any other law enforcement agency:' In your letter dated August 11,2009, you wrote tht ".. .Mr. McDonough advised iistht you are not in possession ofany statements of Mr. Lipscomb taken by any other law enforcement agencies, so anysuch statements would not be available to us either."In fact, your original request was patently overbroad. Unlessthey were involved inthis investigation, we have no way of knowig wheter "any other law enforcementagency" ever took a sttement from Mr. Lipscomb. When Mr. Weiner narowed thescope of the request to such statements in our possession, Mr. McDonoiigh respondedthat he is not aware of any suchstatements. Regardless, you have been provided withMr. Lipscomb's statements as requíed by Marland Rules 4-263 (c)(2) and (d)(3).4. You have also mischaracterized Rule 4-644(a). It does not require, as you said in yourlettr, that the clerk "maintain a record of each grad jur subpoena issued inthe course ofacriminal investigation..." Instead, the Rulerequires thatthe clerk"maintain a record of eachsubpoena issued by the clerk in a criminal investigation.. .~' As a seasoned criinal law attorneyand a former prosecutor, you well know thatRule 4-643 also permts issuace of subpoenas bythe foreman or deputy foreman of thegrandjury. In anyevent, whether issued by the clerk orissued by the foreperson directly, they are subject to grandjur secrecy.Finally, your pejorative and unprofessional comment in your e-mail about this Offce's"minions" is demeaning to the men and Women who workin this Offce. This is not the firstinstace of this type of statement by the defense. Inthe past, there have been a number of suchunprofessional statements made by the defense in this case, both in the papers and extrajudicially,tht had no factual basis.This Offce wil continue to provide discovery on a reasonable basis consistent with theMarland Rules. In tur, we trst that there will be an appropriate degree of decoru andprofessionalism displayed by the defense team.Robert A. RohrbaughState Prosecutor

Cc: Arnold M. Weiner, Esq.Bar L. Gogel, Esq.Norman L. Smith, Esq.Jeffrey E. Nusinov; Esq.Law Offces of Arold M. Weiner2002 Clipper Park Road, Suíte 108Baltimore, Marland 21211

1123456INREIN TH CIRCUT COURTSPECIA INVSTIGATION/SECRETFOR BATIMORE CITYGR JUY PROCINS7TRSCRPT OF PROCINGS8G:rãnd Jur Roo207 Mitchell Courhouse9Baltimore, Mary lãndWedesday, July 22, 2009101112The Grand inquest for the State of Marylan13 for the Bo of Baltimore City, was convened at 12:000' elockp. m., CEISTEEN VICE, Foreperson, presiding.141516171819. 20PRESEN:ROBERT ROHRUGH, ESQUIRESTAT PROSECURDIA R. WAKE, COUR REPORTE TO THGR JUY212223SECRET2425 EXHIBITl 5

21 P RO C E E DIN G S2 J1OR: DO yousolemny declare and affirm under3 the pelties of perjur tht the testimony tht you shall4 give shall be the tluthi the whole truth and nothing but the5 truth?6 TH WITNSS: Yes.7 SPECIA i. JOHN POLIKS8 having been first duy swomi was exned and testified as109 folloWs:TH OATf CL: Stateyour nae and titlei please.11 TH W!'ISS: My nae is John poliks. I am a12 Spcial Agent with the Office of the State Prosecutor.13 BY MR. ROFI1J14 Q .special.Agent Pöliksi how long have you worked as15 either a spcial agent or a police officer?16 A. I spt a little OVer twenty years in the Baltirrre17 POlice Depatntand I).8 have oewith the state Prosecutor's Officeretired in 1995 asa detectivefor alTIstand I19 thrteen years.20 Q. And in tht regad did you have an occasion toi espëially in21 assist in the investigation of Sheila Dixon22 regard to the gift cards?23 A. Yes24 Q. An generall¥i if you would go2San gentlemen of . theiI did..avr with the ladiesGrand Jur the investigatibn relating to

12123REDACTEDSo som of these were ver difficutto trace4567891011becausethere wasn i t a credt card used or there wasn i t aRewad Zone card which is only applicable in Best Buy.REDACTEDQ . Basically if you bi.i a card in cash and you usethat card in the same denomnation there 1 S no record of whoused it? It i s basically untraceable just like cash?A. Tht i S correct.1213REDACTED141516171819202122232425

JU-Ø6-2ØØ9 12: 10 From:MAYQR'S OFFICE 41039689 To: Ø9490187697420Ø P. 2/3lNRE~ .IN IRORAND JUy INVESTIGATIONMAY TERM, 2009..CIRCUI COURT FOR. BALTIORE CITy.r. ~.~,(iP ~.................................................................**......SUBPOENA DUCES TECUMTO: Zo Micha Serve 00:YOU. AR HEREBY SUMMONED AN COMMNDED TO APPEARbe.fOre.. .. th. ..Gt. Jur for Baltimore City, ~~ M. Mitchell, Jr. Co~us, 100 NortCalvcrBaltiore, Marland 21202 on th ': day of July, 2009 at /0 í:¡1 , therto testi an toprvide th followi: '1. For the period Janll 1,2003, June 30,2008: All recrds mae, mantainedretaind, or in the posssion or under the contrl of Zoe Michal, relatng orpeining in any way to the soliciton, reçipt distbution or other use ofgift cas by th Offce of th City Coucil Prsident, Sbèila Dixonindividually, or any member of th staf of the Council Preident, includingbut notlimite to appointment boks and reord, COspndcnc-e,memorada sprshceb, thank-you no"". other communicaions, (wheterin electic or ha coy form), copies or liiita of reipicntø ite receiveddønon, and tlc identities of pacipating st membc.2. For the period Januar i. 2007 tt the pRnt. all m: mad, maintanedreined, 01, in th possession or under th contrl of Zo Miçhal pertiningto the conduct of the Mayor's Holly Trolley tour, iru.luding, but not limiteto, tb itinera, recrds of donation.fin the form of cas,i~gift certlticate orgift cas solicite or reive, rerds rcfoçi~ perss parcipating orsolicited to pacipa", os a dondf oth~ ii~f'.'Of wulftcardii, gift eerttlcats or cah wer distibuted where and to whõii. .C E R i. , S TEE U V, C E .1Date fssuedp- Foreperson ~-".,-l .' 'rjfr:..:¡-.~¡~..;¡t J."i.t, .l ~_ C' " A !~, 'li."' ,.... -'?.... :.:~t:'...)';'"" .~,..f -i. w'"y.,,,;') itì) r,.:~,./ /. .,:.!~"./...r' .. .~' i :' l./-. .-..4... ,.' ,: I. . ..,t i"t,.'l. ~")...;; " .,....:. ; .,.¡:;- .t~ ~;:..". .- f ~ ,. l .... .' +.."t' ..(.:2 '.......011_:'J~;'_i~OUt 022009L;.,~,il

J!.-Ø6-2Ø 12: 1Ø From:MAYO'S OFICE 41Ø389 To: Ø9Ø49Ø18769742Ø P. 3/3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTI th on ths day of , 200, an identicalcopy of the foregoing Subpona Duces Tecum wa Scied upon Zo Michal, bydeliver an identica copy by, toI fuer certify that I am over the age of 18 year.Signature

OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111EVIENCE #: EV-227DATE RECEIVD: 2/4/08DATE SERVEDIMED: 1/18/08DUE DATE:2/5/08CIRCUSTANCES OF RECEæTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:Verizon Subpoena Compliance- Becky FAX #:- -ADI)'~......_. _. _. ..._-- -_._._._-_......._...._._-_.__..._... -----.- -ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:RECEIVD BY: M. SpriggCASE AGEN: J. PoliDELIVRY METHOD: OterSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:\.INNTORY(Description ofItems - Checks, Contracts, etc.)1) Subpoena requestig subscriber inormation for thee (3) numbers staing with2) Notice stating no records found for requested numbers.DISPOSITION: Retued: \\ Destoyed: Maitaed:EXHIBITj71.00:145

\.OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 346DATE RECEIVD: 05/07/08DATE SERVEDIMD:05/06/08DUE DATE:05/15/08CICUTANCES OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:Microsoft Legal Deparent-------....---- -------- -:ASS:----------------:.-----------------One Microsoft WayRedmond, WA 98052ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: OterSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:FAX#:\.INNTORYItems - Checks, Contracts, etc.)(Description of1) Subpoena to Microsoft for the records of Joshua Hampton and/or JasmieHampton2) Afadavit from Alexander Yap ofMSN stating that no records could be locatedDISPOSITION: Retued: Destoyed: Maitaed:1.C100189

\.OSP EVIENCE CONTOL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 351DATE RECEIVD: 05/22/08 RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingDATE SERVEDIMED:05/07/08 CASE AGENT: C. ThesingDUE DATE:05/23/08 DELIVRY METHOD: US MaiCICUSTANCES OF RECEIPT STORAGE LOCATIONOTHR ROOMSHELFRECEIVD FROM PHONE #:NAM:Ban of America, NA Card Servces FAX #:-.------...-...-..---- :AS&----.---.---..-.-....--.---.--..-..--. ----.----...--------..--------..1825 E. Buckeye RoadPhoenix, AZ 85054ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:INNTORY(Description of Items - Checks, Contrcts, etc.)t.; 1) Subpoena and Non-Disclosure order for the account records of2) Letter statig that the credit services deparent does not.have the accountDISPOSITION: Retued: Destroyed: Maitaed::100~9:1

I,OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 353DATE RECEIVD: 05/09/08DATE SERVEDIMED:05/09/08DUE DA TE:05/28/08CIRCUMSTANCE OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:NordstromsRECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: OterSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:FAX#:.. ADRES:.... .- ..... -_. .... .....-. _. - .. -. ....-.-.... -.--._.. ------.---- -- ...--.---...---.--.--..-.---..-..------ .._..-...-..700 Faiont AveTowson, MD 21286ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:\.INNTORYItems - Checks, Contracts, etc.)(Description of1) Subpoena to for purchase record of sheila dixon2) Email statig that no records were foundDisPosmON: Retued: Destyed: Maitaed:~..:100192

\.OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 354DATE RECEIVD: 06/09/08DATE SERVEDIMED:05/27/08DUE DATE:06/02/08CICUSTANCES OF RECEIPOTHRRECEIVD FROMNAM:Toys R Us FAX #:RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY :MTHOD: DHLSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELF'PHONE#::ADR:.--------.-.....------.--. -...-.----.. -'-" -..-_.--- -- ..--.._- .---..__...---"- ..-- ..-...10200 Reisterstown RoadOwigs Mils, MD 21117ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:_._-- ------ .._-_..-\.INNTORY(Descnption ofItems - Checks, Contrcts, etc.)1) Subpoena to Toys R Us for the purchase records of Sheila Dixon2) Afadavit stating that no records were foundDlSPosmON: Retued: Destoyed: Maitaed:1.:1001.93

OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: - 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 365DATE RECEIVD: 03/31/08DATE SERVEDIMED:03/19/08DUE DATE:04/04/08CICUMTANCES OF RECEIPSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:Best Buy #282 FAX #:RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: Picked upSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:. ..AÐRE-8---.-' ---..-------_..--_..- .--..-.--------------. 1--------------------------------,------_.._-_.._-----1701 Belmont AvenueBaltiore, :M 21244ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:Rachel Russell\INNTORY(Description of Items - Checks, Contracts, etc.)1) Subpoena to Best Buy for the purchase records of Howard Dixon2) Letter sttig no records found3) prit out showig no recordsDISPOSITION: Retued: Destoyed: Maitaed:.:100203

OSP EVIENCE CONTOL FORMCASE #: 7-1111 EVIENCE #: 392.DATE RECEIVD: 417104DATE SERVEDIMD:4/10/08DUE DATE:4/23/08CICUTANCES OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:Custodian of Records, Je Penney FAX #:RECEIVD BY: M. SpriggCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: OterSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:- .ADDRES-:... .--..-. .....- - --. ---.. .- .- _...- .._._- .-....--.-..._..---.-...- -- - -.--.----- -----.--. .---.----..----.----.-.-.....----..- .10400 Mill Run CirOwigs Mils., MD 21117ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:\INNTORY(Description of Items - Checks, Contrcts, etc.)1) Grand Jur subpoena for all records of purchases by Sheila Dixon 1/1103 topresent, includig 12/6/04 for 128.732) Per Alexi, LP Manager, no records found";\DISPOSITION: Retued: Destoyed: Maitained:1.0021.9

OSP.EVIENCE CONTROL FORM\ CASE #: 07-111 1DATE RECEIVD: 07123/08DATE SERVEDIMED:07/0S/0SDUE DATE:07/25/0SCIRCUTANCES OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:Ban of AmericaADDRESS:1425 NW 62nd Street- -Fort.Laudeda-FL33J0-9 ..... -- .-- ......-.ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INFO:EVIENCE#: 415RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY :MTHOD: FEDEXSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:FAX#:. ... _. .._.. ...- --_._.. ._......-- .._..._--.INNTORY(Description ofItems - Checks, Contrcts, etc.)1. Subpoena to Ban of America for the records of Check Card Number\,2. Afadavit statig no records could be locatedDISPOSITION: Retued: Destroyed: Maitaed:-1.00235

OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 373DATE RECEIVD: 04/09/08DATE SERVEDIMED:03/31/08DUE DA TE:04/1 4/08CIRCUMSTANCES OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAM:The In at Harard SquaeADDRESS:1201 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INO:RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: US MailSTORAGE LOCATIONROOMSHELFPHONE#:FAX#:~. . .INNTORY(Description of Items - Checks, Contrts, etc.)1) Subpoena for records related to Sheila Dixon, Ronald Lipscomb and DoraconContracting Inc2) Affadafit stating that Collegiate Hospitaity- LLC is not is possession of RecordsDISPOSITION: Retued: Destroyed: Maitaed::iOûJ,s..~:

OSP EVIENCE CONTROL FORMCASE #: 07-1111 EVIENCE #: 520DATE RECEIVD: 09/22/08DATE SERVEDIMED:09/10/08DUE DA TE:09/1 0/08CIRCUMSTANCES OF RECEIPTSUBPOENARECEIVD FROMNAME:McCormick and Schmck's SeafoodR.urL_ADDRESS:711 Eastern AvenueBaltimore, MD 21202ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA INFO:RECEIVD BY: C. ThesingCASE AGENT: C. ThesingDELIVRY METHOD: FEDEXSTORAGE LOCATION,ROOMSHELFPHONE#:FAX#:INNTORY(Description of Items - Checks, Contracts, etc.)1) Subpoena for all Lipscomb Reciept2) Affadivit stting no records found to Mid 2005DisposmON: Retued:"E, '-r-. ~ ,- 0.. U'U~L i.' V