Exhibit 1

Filed Under Seal

 Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 - East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005-3373
A. Scott Bolden +1 202 414 9200
Direct Phone: +1 202 414 9266 Fax +1 202 414 9299
Email: abolden@[Link] [Link]

February 8, 2022

Confidential

By Electronic Mail

Leo Wise
Assistant United States Attorney
36 S. Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201-3119

Re: United States v. Mosby, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00007-LKG

Dear Mr. Wise:

This letter constitutes the initial discovery request on behalf of our client Marilyn J. Mosby, State’s
Attorney for Baltimore City (“State’s Attorney Mosby”). We intend to supplement this letter as
necessary.

We request that the Government provide discovery pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, the Court’s
Order issued on February 4, 2022,1 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and under the applicable rules of prosecutorial
ethics.2 We ask that you advise us of any specific requests with which the government declines to
comply.

The documents3 and information requested include not only documents and information in the
possession, custody, or control of your office, but also documents and information in the possession,
custody, or control of any agency allied with the prosecution, including the Federal Bureau of

1
See Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), United States v. Mosby, No. 1:22-CR-00007-LKG-1 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2022),
ECF No. 14 (ordering the Government to adhere to disclosure obligations set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
and its progeny and to produce in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence).
2
See Maryland Rule 19-303.8(d) “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor” (“[t]he prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . (d)
make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of
the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all
unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by
a protective order of the tribunal”).
3
The word “documents” includes all books, papers, letters, correspondence, e-mails, notebooks, reports, memoranda, studies,
diaries, notes, messages, computer facilitated or transmitted materials, images, photographs, information in any computer
database, audio and video tapes, recordings, transcripts, ledgers, printouts and all copies or portions thereof, and any other
written, recorded, or memorialized material of any nature whatsoever, including FBI reports of interviews and/or interview
notes.
ABU DHABI  ATHENS  AUSTIN  BEIJING  BRUSSELS  CENTURY CITY  CHICAGO  DALLAS  DUBAI  FRANKFURT  HONG KONG
HOUSTON  KAZAKHSTAN  LONDON  LOS ANGELES  MIAMI  MUNICH  NEW YORK  PARIS  PHILADELPHIA  PITTSBURGH  PRINCETON
RICHMOND  SAN FRANCISCO  SHANGHAI  SILICON VALLEY  SINGAPORE  TYSONS  WASHINGTON, D.C.  WILMINGTON

US_ACTIVE-165121380.2-PNUNEZH 02/08/2022 12:06 PM

February 8, 2022
Page 2

Investigation (“FBI”), the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury
(collectively “the government”).

A. Rule 16 Discovery Requests

1. The substance of any oral statement made by the State’s Attorney Mosby in response to
the interrogation by any person then known by her to be a government agent if the government intends
to use that statement at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A).

2. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by State’s Attorney Mosby within the
possession, custody, or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by exercise of
due diligence could be known, to the attorneys for the government. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(B)(i).

3. That portion of any written record containing the substance of any relevant oral statement
made by State’s Attorney Mosby in response to interrogation by any person then known to him to be a
government agent. Fed. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(B)(ii).

4. All books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or
copies or portions thereof (collectively “materials”) that are material to preparing the defense and are
within the government’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i).

5. All books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or
copies or portions thereof that the government intends to use at trial as evidence in chief and are within
the government’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(ii). This includes not
only those materials that will be relied on or referred to in any way by any witness (including any expert
witness) called by the government during its case-in-chief. We ask that any materials that the
government intends to use at trial as evidence in chief be specifically identified, both to enable counsel
to prepare effectively for trial at to afford State’s Attorney Mosby an opportunity to move to suppress
any such evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C) and 12(b)(4)(B). In addition, we ask that you
identify the source for all materials produced pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E) or Brady.

6. All books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or
copies or portions thereof that were obtained from or belong to State’s Attorney Mosby and that are
within the government’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).

7. All written summary of testimony the government intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or
705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its case-in-chief at trial. The summary should describe the
witnesses’ opinions, the bases and reasons therefore, and the witnesses’ qualifications. Fed. R. Crim. P.
16(a)(1)(G).

B. Brady, Kyles, and Giglio Requests

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny including Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419 (1995) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), State’s Attorney Mosby requests
prompt disclosure of all documents and information, in whatever form, that would tend to exculpate her
with respect to the charges in the Indictment, or that would tend to reduce any sentence. The documents
and information that we request under Brady and its progeny include:
February 8, 2022
Page 3

8. All documents or information, in whatever form, tending to establish that any of the
allegations in the Indictment are not true; or that would tend to contradict or mitigate either the
government’s theory of its prosecution or arguments at sentencing. This requests includes, but is not
limited to any and all reports, memoranda, notes or other written, recorded, or digitally preserved
memorializations in the government’s possession or control pertaining to the following:

a. All documents pertaining to State’s Attorney Mosby’s knowledge or lack thereof of the
tax lien identified in the Indictment;

b. All documents pertaining to communications between State’s Attorney Mosby’s and her
husband and the IRS;

c. All documents pertaining to State’s Attorney Mosby’s eligibility or ineligibility for the
CARES Act benefit which she received; and

d. All documents pertaining to “adverse financial consequences” experienced by State’s

Attorney Mosby stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

9. All documents or information, in whatever form, that may be used to impeach any
potential prosecution witnesses, including both witnesses whom the prosecution intends to call to the
witness stand and declarants whose out-of-court statements the prosecution intends to present as non-
hearsay or pursuant to a hearsay exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 806. The impeachment information we
request includes:

a. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to any conviction or arrest for
any potential prosecution witness;

b. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to promises, consideration, or

inducements made to any potential prosecution witness, whether directly to the witness or
indirectly to the witness’ attorney. “Consideration” means anything of value or use,
including without limitation immunity grants, whether formal or informal, witness fees,
transportation assistance, money, or assurance of favorable treatment with respect to any
criminal, civil, or administrative matter;

c. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to known but uncharged

criminal conduct, which may provide a motive to cooperate with the government;

d. All documents or information, in whatever form, that would tend to impeach the
credibility of any potential prosecution witness;

e. All documents or information, in whatever form, bearing adversely on the character or

reputation for truthfulness of any potential prosecution witness;

f. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to any psychological or

psychiatric treatment or condition of any potential prosecution witness that could affect
the witness’ memory, perception, veracity, or credibility;
February 8, 2022
Page 4

g. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to any drug or alcohol use by
any potential prosecution witness that could affect the witness’ memory, perception,
veracity, or credibility;

h. Any written or oral statements, whether or not reduced to writing, made by any person
which in any way reasonably or conceivably contradicts or is inconsistent with or
different from the testimony or expected testimony of such person or any other person the
government intends to call as a witness or trial, or which otherwise reflect upon the
credibility, competency, bias, or motive of any prosecution witness.

i. All documents or information, in whatever form, relating to any physical or organic

condition of any potential prosecution witness that could affect the witness’ memory,
perception, veracity, or credibility; and

j. Each specific instance of conduct from which it could be inferred that any potential
prosecution witness is untruthful.

C. Jencks Material

For the purpose of meeting the government’s obligation to produce certain “statements” under 18
U.S.C. § 3500 (Jencks Act), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963), we request that any and all handwritten or informal notes of witness interviews be preserved.
In order to move this case as expeditiously as possible, it is requested that the required “statements” be
provided as far in advance of trial as possible.

D. Fed. R. Evid. 1006 Requests

10. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 1006 and Fed. R. Crim. P 12(b)(4), State’s Attorney Mosby
requests that she be advised whether the prosecution will seek to offer any chart, summary, or
calculation in evidence, and if so, (1) that such charts, summaries, and calculations be produced, and (2)
that all writings, recordings, or other information on which such charts, summaries, or calculations are
based be made available for inspection and copying.

E. Fed. R. Evid. 104 Requests

11. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 104 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(4), State’s Attorney Mosby
requests that the prosecution disclose whether it intends to offer in its case-in-chief as a statement any of
the following, and that it provide the substance of any such statement:

a. Any statement by State’s Attorney Mosby in either an individual or representative

capacity. Fed. R. Evid. 802(d)(2)(A);

b. Any statement as to which State’s Attorney Mosby allegedly manifested her adoption of
belief in its truth. Fed. R. Evid. 802(d)(2)(B);

c. Any statement made by another which was purportedly authorized by State’s Attorney
Mosby. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C); or
February 8, 2022
Page 5

d. Any statement made by an agent or employee of State’s Attorney Mosby concerning a

matter within the scope his or her agency or employment made during the existence of
such a relationship. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).

F. Fed. R. Evid. 807(b) Requests

12. Similarly, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 807(b), we request that the prosecution advise
whether it intends to offer a statement under the residual hearsay exception. If so, State’s Attorney
Mosby requests that statement, as well as the name and address of the declarant. Fed. R. Evid. 807(b).

G. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) Requests

13. State’s Attorney Mosby requests that the prosecution disclose all evidence of uncharged
misconduct, similar crimes, wrongs, or acts allegedly committed by her, upon which the prosecution
intends to rely to prove motive, scheme, opportunity, intent, preparation, knowledge, or absence of
mistake or accident either in its case-in-chief or in rebuttal. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We further request
that this disclosure be made with at least the degree of particularity required in an indictment and should
identify any witnesses or documents that the prosecution will offer with respect to the uncharged
misconduct. The disclosure should identify the purpose for which the uncharged misconduct is offered
and include any “reverse 404(b)” evidence that may tend to negate State’s Attorney Mosby’s alleged
guilt regarding the uncharged misconduct.

H. Rule 12 Requests

As a predicate to motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, the government is
requested to turn over and disclose:

14. From 2020 to present, each and every instance where any United States citizen has been
charged by the government with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1746, for allegedly
making a withdrawal from a 457(b) or 401(k) plan pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act while not meeting the qualifying criteria to make such a withdrawal.

We are available to confer with you with a view to completing the discovery aspect of this case
in an efficient and expeditious manner.

Sincerely, I am,

A. Scott Bolden

CC: Rizwan A. Qureshi, Esq.

Kelley Miller, Esq.
 Exhibit 2

Filed Under Seal

 U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of Maryland

Leo Wise Suite 400 DIRECT: 410-209-4909

Assistant United States Attorney 36 S. Charles Street MAIN: 410-209-4800
[Link]@[Link] Baltimore, MD 21201-3119

February 17, 2022

A. Scott Bolden
Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 - East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005-3373

Re: United States v. Marilyn Mosby

Criminal No. LKG-22-0007
Discovery Production 1 – USAfx

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to Rules 16 and 16.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Local
Standing Order 2020-01, the United States is providing initial discovery in the above-referenced
matter. You have been added to a folder on our file sharing site, USAfx. Please download the
materials off of the site and on to a hard drive or computer as the files will expire in the future.
The government will continue to provide additional discovery on a rolling basis.

• Documents (717) , USA-000001 - 016060

o ‘Manifest’ listing the type and description of each document (.csv file)
• Recordings
o Nick Mosby Interview
o Nationwide Calls
• Subpoena Responses (Native)
o 013 Mr Cooper GJ Subpoena Response 12-21-20
o 054 Sharif Small GJ Subpoena Response 3-16-21
o 054 Sharif Small GJ Subpoena Response 4-12-21
o 140 Council President Office GJ Subpoena Response 4-8-21
o 142 Department of Finance GJ Subpoena Response 4-8-21

Please note that the discovery materials we are providing are of a private nature and contain
personal information that the government and the defendants have a responsibility to protect from
unneeded disclosure. As we have discussed, these particular materials relate only to the defendant,
and therefore we do not object to you sharing them with your client. However, additional materials
may contain information related to other individuals, and we will notify you if there is a need to
keep those materials in your possession and not provide copies to the Defendant. In addition, you
agree that the enclosed materials are provided on the condition that all discovery “may be used
only in connection with the defense of this case and may not be provided to any other person except
by agreement of the Government or order of the Court,” with the exception of expert witnesses
and other persons directly involved in the defense. Standing Order 2020-01, ¶ 2.c.
I. DISCOVERY ENCLOSED

A description of the items within this production, organized according to the provisions of
Rule 16, may be found below.

Rule 16(a)(1)(A), (B) - Defendant’s Oral & Written Statements

• Nationwide Recordings (produced in native format)

• USA-001255 through USA-001268
• USA-005781 through USA-005986
• USA-010954 through USA-010988

Rule 16(a)(1)(D) - Defendant’s Prior Record

• n/a

Rule 16(a)(1)(E) - Documents & Objects

• All other records contained in this discovery production.

• If you wish to review any physical evidence in person, please contact me and we will
see if arrangements can be made for an evidence inspection.

Rule 16(a)(1)(F) - Reports of Examinations & Tests

• n/a

Rule 16(a)(1)(G) – Expert Witnesses

• Expert disclosures will be made at a later date.

II. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENDANT

The United States hereby requests disclosure, pursuant to Federal Rule 16(b) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure and Standing Order 2020-001 ¶ 3, of the following:

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(A), we request disclosure of any and all books, papers,
documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, or copies or portions thereof, which are in the
possession, custody, or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce as
evidence in her case-in-chief.

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(B), we request disclosure of any and all reports or results of
physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with the
above-captioned case, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody, or control of
the defendant and either the defendant intends to introduce as evidence or which were prepared by
a witness whom the defendant intends to call when the results of the reports relate to the witness'
testimony.

2
 Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(C), and in light of your request for disclosures pursuant to Rule
16(a)(1)(G) the United States requests a summary of any testimony that the defense intends to use
under Rule 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding any of these
matters.

Sincerely,

Erek L. Barron
United States Attorney

________/s/______________
Leo Wise
Sean Delaney
Aaron Zelinsky
Assistant United States Attorneys

Encl.

CC:

Daniel Zev Herbst

Reed Smith LLP
1301 K St NW Ste 1100 East Tower
Washington, DC 20005

Anthony R Todd
Reed Smith LLP
10 South Wacker Drive 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606

Kelley C Miller
Reed Smith LLP
7900 Tysons One Place Ste 500
McLean, VA 22102

Rizwan Qureshi
Reed Smith LLP
1301 K St. NW Ste. 1000 East Tower
Washington, DC 20005

3
 Exhibit 3

Filed Under Seal

 Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 - East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005-3373
A. Scott Bolden +1 202 414 9200
Direct Phone: +1 202 414 9266 Fax +1 202 414 9299
Email: abolden@[Link] [Link]

March 7, 2022

Confidential

By Electronic Mail

Leo Wise
Assistant United States Attorney
36 S. Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201-3119

Re: United States v. Mosby, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00007-LKG

Dear Leo:

This letter constitutes the second discovery request on behalf of our client Marilyn J. Mosby,
State’s Attorney for Baltimore City (“State’s Attorney Mosby”), as our initial discovery request was made
by letter dated February 8, 2022 (the “Initial Discovery Request”).

Although our review of the voluminous discovery continues, there are several requests in the Initial
Discovery Request for which the Defense received no response or discovery. These requests include:

 Request B(8)(a) – All documents pertaining to State’s Attorney Mosby’s knowledge or

lack thereof of the tax lien identified in the Indictment. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963).

 Request C – For the purpose of meeting the government’s obligation to produce certain
“statements” under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (Jencks Act), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
26.2, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), we request that any and all handwritten
or informal notes of witness interviews be preserved and please provide confirmation that
your office has communicated this preservation request to all individuals who may possess
handwritten or informal notes of witness interviews. In order to move this case as
expeditiously as possible, it is requested that the required “statements” be provided at least
two weeks in advance of trial.

 Request G – State’s Attorney Mosby requests that the prosecution disclose all evidence of
uncharged misconduct, similar crimes, wrongs, or acts allegedly committed by her, upon
which the prosecution intends to rely to prove motive, scheme, opportunity, intent,
preparation, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident either in its case-in-chief or in
rebuttal. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We further request that this disclosure be made with at least
the degree of particularity required in an indictment and should identify any witnesses or
documents that the prosecution will offer with respect to the uncharged misconduct. The
ABU DHABI  ATHENS  AUSTIN  BEIJING  BRUSSELS  CENTURY CITY  CHICAGO  DALLAS  DUBAI  FRANKFURT  HONG KONG
HOUSTON  KAZAKHSTAN  LONDON  LOS ANGELES  MIAMI  MUNICH  NEW YORK  PARIS  PHILADELPHIA  PITTSBURGH  PRINCETON
RICHMOND  SAN FRANCISCO  SHANGHAI  SILICON VALLEY  SINGAPORE  TYSONS  WASHINGTON, D.C.  WILMINGTON

US_ACTIVE-165493256.4-PNUNEZH 03/07/2022 4:28 PM

Leo Wise
March 7, 2022
Page 2

disclosure should identify the purpose for which the uncharged misconduct is offered and
include any “reverse 404(b)” evidence that may tend to negate State’s Attorney Mosby’s
alleged guilt regarding the uncharged misconduct.

We also request that the Government immediately produce the Baltimore City OIG’s investigation
documents that the Government referenced at the status conference held on February 23, 2022.

We request that the Government provide this missing discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its
progeny, the Court’s Order issued on February 4, 2022,1 and under the applicable rules of prosecutorial
ethics.2 In the alternative, we ask that the Government confirm in writing that it does not intend to
introduce 404(b) evidence at trial or that the Government is not in possession of evidence in any of the
aforementioned categories. If the Government contends that it has already produced 404(b) evidence, we
ask that the Government identify such evidence by bates number and produce any “reverse 404(b)”
evidence in the Government’s possession.

Identification of Brady Evidence

Additionally, we request that the Government specifically designate the Brady material it has
produced or will produce. Courts in the Fourth Circuit have found that given the constitutional nature of
the government’s Brady obligation, designation is appropriate to the extent possible. See United States v.
Blankenship, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76287, at *16 (S.D.W. Va. June 12, 2015) (requiring the government
to specifically designate any known Brady material to defense counsel).

Alternatively, we ask that the Government identify the material it knows in good faith that it does
not intend to use at trial, under the “negative identification approach” established by courts in this Circuit.
See United States v. Cason, No. 1:15-CR-30, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110444, at *7 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 7,
2015) (require the government to identify what evidence the government would consider using at trial
where a voluminous production was made); United States v. Contech Engineered Sols. LLC, 2021 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 35069, at *15 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2021) (requiring the government to use the negative
identification approach established in Cason to identify the evidence it in good faith did not intend to use
at trial to facilitate the defendant’s review of voluminous discovery); see also United States v. Skilling,
554 F.3d 529, 577 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that where the government had taken additional measures to
facilitate review including identifying hot documents that were relevant to its case-in-chief or the defense,
specifically identifying Brady material was not necessary).

1
See Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f), United States v. Mosby, No. 1:22-CR-00007-LKG-1 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2022),
ECF No. 14 (ordering the Government to adhere to disclosure obligations set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
and its progeny and to produce in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence).
2
See Maryland Rule 19-303.8(d) “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor” (“[t]he prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . (d)
make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of
the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all
unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by
a protective order of the tribunal”).
Leo Wise
March 7, 2022
Page 3

At the status conference on February 23rd the Government indicated that it is not its practice to
identify Brady material because Brady material is in the “eye of the beholder” and dependent upon a
defendant’s specific defenses. This runs contrary to the standard set forth in Brady. The Government is
obligated to disclose evidence favorable to an accused, upon request, where the evidence is material either
to guilt or punishment. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); see also United States v. Caro,
597 F.3d 608, 619 (4th Cir. 2010). Evidence is favorable to the defendant where it is exculpatory or it
could be used to impeach a prosecution witness. See United States v. Leigh, 61 Fed. Appx. 854, 856 (4th
Cir. 2003). Evidence is material under Brady if there exists a reasonable probability that had the evidence
been disclosed, the result at trial would be different. See Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 5 (1995).
These standards are not based upon the “eye of the beholder” or the specific defenses of a defendant. The
Government is required to turn over exculpatory evidence in its possession and failing to do so is a due
process violation. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

Specific Brady Requests

The Government further stated at the status conference that, in its view, that there is no “objective”
Brady material in the Government’s possession that has not been turned over. The Defense is aware of
several such examples, however, and is therefore seeking Brady material it knows to exist.

First, there are several additional phone calls between State’s Attorney Mosby and Nationwide
that are exculpatory in nature and that were not included in the Government’s production. Please provide
all recordings of phone calls between State’s Attorney Mosby and Nationwide or confirm in writing that
the Government has produced all audio recordings of this nature.

Second, there are several witnesses that the Defense knows the Government spoke with, yet the
Defense has received no discovery with respect to these interviews. These interviews include those of
Carlton Saunders, several donors to State’s Attorney Mosby’s campaigns, several pastors and churches in
Baltimore, several former employers of State’s Attorney Mosby, State’s Attorney Mosby’s hairdresser,
the dance instructor of State’s Attorney Mosby’s children, and several former employees of State’s
Attorney Mosby and Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby. To the extent it is the Government’s
position that State’s Attorney Mosby is not entitled to these interviews, please provide a basis in writing
for why they are being withheld and why you are not agreeing to their disclosure given Government’s
representation at the last status hearing that your office intends to provide “fulsome” and “open file
discovery”.

Third, given your commitment to providing “fulsome” discovery, please produce all grand jury
transcripts related to the investigation into State’s Attorney Mosby. Given the Government’s
representation at the last status hearing that what constitutes exculpatory material is “in the eye of the
beholder”, we demand the production of all grand jury transcripts so that we may be able to determine
whether they are in fact exculpatory in nature.

Fourth, as you are aware, we remain convinced that this is an animus-driven prosecution and
evidence of the Government’s animus could impact the jury’s verdict. For these reasons, pursuant to
Brady and its progeny, State’s Attorney Mosby demands disclosure of all documents, including internal
DOJ communications, related to the Government’s decision to charge State’s Attorney Mosby, including
Leo Wise
March 7, 2022
Page 4

any communications with certain third parties who may have referred this matter to the Government. In
that same regard, we demand disclosure of all documents and communications relating to any
consideration given to State’s Attorney Mosby’s request to appear before the grand jury and relating to
the timing of the return of the Indictment. To the extent the Government refuses to produce this
information, please confirm the basis for such refusal in writing.

Accordingly, the Defense again requests that this Brady material and any other Brady material in
the Government’s possession be turned over immediately. Failing to turn over discoverable evidence
would violate the Court’s Order of February 4, 2022, this District’s standing order on criminal discovery,
and the government’s obligations under well-established law.

We are available to confer with you to discuss the aforementioned discovery so that we may
resolve these issues without Court intervention and prepare for trial as expeditiously as possible.

Sincerely, I am,

A. Scott Bolden

CC: Rizwan A. Qureshi, Esq.

Kelley Miller, Esq.
 Exhibit 4

Filed Under Seal

 Reed Smith LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 - East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005-3373
A. Scott Bolden +1 202 414 9200
Direct Phone: +1 202 414 9266 Fax +1 202 414 9299
Email: abolden@[Link] [Link]

March 21, 2022

Confidential

By Electronic Mail

Leo Wise
Assistant United States Attorney
36 S. Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201-3119

Re: United States v. Mosby, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00007-LKG

Dear Leo:

As you know, Reed Smith LLP represents State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby in connection with the
above-referenced matter. This letter is in response to your requests in your letter, dated February 17, 2022,
for disclosures under Rule 16(B)(1)(a), Rule 16(B)(1)(b) and Rule 16(B)(1)(c). In addition, this letter
contains additional Rule 16 discovery requests.

A. Disclosures Under Rule 16

With regard to your request for reciprocal discovery pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(a), as of this time,
we have not identified any such documents. As our review of the relevant discovery propounded by the
government continues (including discovery that is not yet in our possession), we will update these
disclosures as necessary.

With regard to your request for the results of tests or analyses pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(b), at this
time, we have no such reports or results to disclose. To the extent any such examinations and tests come
within the Ms. Mosby’s possession, custody, or control, and Ms. Mosby intends to use any such
examinations and tests in her case-in-chief at trial, disclosures will be made.

With regard to your request for expert materials pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(c), we note that the
government has failed to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(c)(i). By letter dated, February 8, 2022, Ms. Mosby
requested, pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G), that the government produce “[a]ll written summary of testimony
the government intends to use under Rule 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence during its
case-in-chief at trial.” See Letter from A. Scott Bolden to Leo Wise, dated February 8, 2022, at ¶ 7. In
your response letter dated, February 17, 2022, you stated that the government would provide expert
disclosure “at a later date.”1 Nearly 30 days have passed since your letter, and the government has still
not made its expert disclosure. At this time, your expert disclosure is well past due the 21 days following
1
It should be noted that this is inconsistent with the government’s representation to the Court on February 23, 2022, where
the government represented that it did not anticipate calling any expert witnesses at trial.
ABU DHABI  ATHENS  AUSTIN  BEIJING  BRUSSELS  CENTURY CITY  CHICAGO  DALLAS  DUBAI  FRANKFURT  HONG KONG
HOUSTON  KAZAKHSTAN  LONDON  LOS ANGELES  MIAMI  MUNICH  NEW YORK  PARIS  PHILADELPHIA  PITTSBURGH  PRINCETON
RICHMOND  SAN FRANCISCO  SHANGHAI  SILICON VALLEY  SINGAPORE  TYSONS  WASHINGTON, D.C.  WILMINGTON
Leo Wise
March 21, 2022
Page 2

our discovery demand of February 8, 2022. See Standing Order at ¶ 2.b (requiring the government to
provide the defense with an expert disclosure within 21 days of the defense’s demand). We continue to
ask that you comply with our expert disclosure demand.

As a result of your continuing failure to provide an expert disclosure (much less a timely
disclosure), the defense is under no obligation at this time to provide the government with a reciprocal
expert disclosure. Under Rule 16(B)(1)(c)(i) and ¶ 3.b of the Standing Discovery Order of the District of
Maryland, our obligation to provide an expert disclosure is not triggered until the government satisfies its
expert disclosure obligations imposed by FRCP 16(a)(1)(G) and Standing Order ¶ 3.b. See also FRCP
16(b)(1)(C)(i) (a defendant is not required to provide an expert disclosure until the government “complies”
with its expert disclosure obligations).

However, in light that the trial is just over six weeks away, the defense may call one or more
experts to provide testimony concerning topics that include, but are not limited to, the following:

 a forensic analysis of State Attorney Mosby’s personal and business finances;

 the CARES Act, including its legislative history and intent, as it relates to 457(b)
withdrawals for unforeseeable emergencies; and
 federal tax liens and the role they play in the mortgage application process.

II. Additional Discovery Requests

State’s Attorney Mosby re-incorporates the outstanding discovery requests made in her Second
Discovery Request, dated March 7, 2022. On behalf of State’s Attorney Mosby, we request the additional
discoverable materials described below. We intend to supplement this letter as necessary.

Pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, we hereby request that the
Government provide a Bill of Particulars in response to the requests set forth below, originating from the
new information contained in the Superseding Indictment filed on March 10, 2022.

1. Particulars of how State’s Attorney Mosby “falsely represented” that she had spent 70 days living
in Florida and working remotely.

2. Particulars of State’s Attorney Mosby’s intent to “lock in a lower interest rate” by submitting a
“false gift letter.”
Leo Wise
March 21, 2022
Page 3

Please provide the government’s position on the above outstanding discovery requests, including
whether the government intends to call an expert as part of its case-in-chief, by no later than close of
business on March 22, 2022. By March 22, 2022, please provide your position on the above or provide
your availability to meet and confer on Wednesday (3/23), Thursday (3/24) and Friday (3/25) of this week
to discuss all outstanding issues. Given that we are just over six weeks away from trial, we expect that
the government will respond expeditiously to our requests, including to meet and confer.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, I am,

A. Scott Bolden

CC: Rizwan A. Qureshi, Esq.