Fred Allnutt - Page 9

                                        - 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