- 9 -
disclosure office in Baltimore received each of those subpoenas
on December 30, 2003. Petitioner did not personally serve the
subpoenas or tender witness fees or mileage. Respondent filed
motions to quash the subpoenas on the same grounds as
respondent’s earlier motions to quash; e.g., that petitioner did
not comply with the procedural requirements for issuing
subpoenas. At trial on January 5, 2004, we granted respondent’s
motion to quash the subpoena issued to respondent’s revenue
agent. Respondent’s motion to quash as to the agent’s supervisor
was moot because petitioner did not call her to testify.
At trial, petitioner offered into evidence the two lists and
the 20 invoices and purchase orders (and accompanying cover
letters for those documents) that he had faxed to respondent on
July 10 and 28, 2003. Respondent objected to the admission of
the lists into evidence as hearsay. Respondent did not object to
their being admitted as a summary of petitioner’s testimony. The
two lists were admitted into evidence as a summary of
petitioner’s testimony.
Petitioner also offered into evidence two typewritten
summaries showing descriptions, serial numbers, purchase dates
and prices, and sale dates and prices for items of equipment
purchased by petitioner on or after February 11, 1981, neither of
which petitioner had provided to respondent’s counsel before
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011