Sharon Carrillo lawyer accuses state of deception
Lawyers assigned to represent Sharon Carrillo have alleged that state prosecutors committed professional and prosecutorial misconduct after sending a letter “purporting to be a subpoena” to a New York school the accused murderer reportedly attended during her childhood.
Sharon Carrillo, 33, and her husband Julio Carrillo, 51, have both been charged with depraved indifference murder in the prolonged beating death of the woman’s 10-year-old daughter, Marissa Kennedy in late February.
The letter was labeled as Subpoena to Produce Documents, had an official appearance and was signed by Donald Macomber, Assistant Attorney General, according to a copy of the letter.
The letter, which was addressed to the school, stated the head of the school, was being commanded to appear before “the Waldo County Court” April 6, at 9 a.m., and that she was required to bring any records for Sharon Carrillo, then known by her maiden name of Kennedy.
A note was featured at the bottom of the letter stating: “in lieu of appearing personally before the Waldo County Court, you may comply with this subpoena by providing copies of the requested information together with a certificate identifying them as your business records by email to Assistant Attorney General Donald Macomber….”
The head of the school later stated that she felt like she only had two options; to travel to Maine for the court date or mail the requested documents, according to an affidavit.
An affidavit was submitted as evidence in the motion for a protective order filed March 21. The order requested would direct the State to turn over any and all materials received from the school, according to court documents.
In the affidavit, the school head wrote she received a phone call from a Maine State Police detective in March requesting the records of Sharon Carrillo, then Kennedy, and advised him she could not release the records without the student’s consent, by court order, or with a valid subpoena.
She wrote that she then received what she thought to be a valid subpoena March 19, ordering her to appear at an April 6, court date. The woman said she feared she could get in trouble if she did not comply with the order, which stipulated that she could send the requested records in lieu of appearing in court. She was contacted by attorneys for Sharon Carrillo March 20, requesting she not send the records; however, they had already been sent, court documents said.
Records sent included progress reports, report cards, an independent education program, and a psychological evaluation. The woman said had she known there was no scheduled court appearance on April 6, and the subpoena was not valid, she would not have released the records to the Attorney General’s Office, according to the affidavit
The school in question is reportedly a private school without its own legal counsel.
In response to the incident, Sharon Carrillo’s co-counsel, Attorney Laura P. Shaw, of Camden Law, filed an expedited motion for a protective order March 21, citing the March 16, “Subpoena to Produce Documents” mailed by the State of Maine Attorney General’s Office.
Shaw wrote that the woman received the subpoena at the school in question, which stated that she is being commanded to appear to “testify” at the Waldo County Courthouse in Belfast on April 6. The letter also required the woman produce and bring with her “any and all records for Sharon Kennedy.”
In her affidavit, Shaw wrote that the manner in which the private and confidential records have been obtained by the State violates the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure, in addition to violating Sharon Carrillo’s privacy and due process rights. She wrote the incident constitutes professional and prosecutorial misconduct under the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct.
These rules stipulate that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Shaw wrote that “the conduct at issue surrounding the service of this subpoena is egregious, and constitutes misrepresentation at best.”
The affidavit states that a State of Maine subpoena has no authority to command the production of documents outside of the State of Maine and that in order to command production of documents from a New York entity, a proper procedure would have to be employed. The mailing of a document entitled “subpoena” and signed by a member of the Maine Bar to a New York school is not a valid, enforceable use of Maine’s subpoena power, Shaw argued in the affidavit.
Shaw also wrote that the April 6 court date referenced in the subpoena had never been scheduled and that therefore the statements contained in the subpoena were “dishonest and deceitful.” She accuses the Attorney General’s office of “misrepresenting the validity and authority of a “subpoena” as well as pertinent facts in order to fraudulently procure records that it knew were confidential and protected records.”
The affidavit concludes by saying that “as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness,” the Honorable Court should issue a protective order, on an expedited basis. The order would require the Office of the Attorney General to immediately turn over any records received from the school. Shaw also wrote the defendant is seeking sanctions against the Attorney General’s Office for the “unethical and egregious act.”
She also requested that the Attorney General’s office be prohibited from accessing or using the records or any information contained within them in any form related to the case.
A hearing for the expedited motion for a protective order has been scheduled for March 27, in Waldo County Superior Court at 3 p.m.
Erica Thoms can be reached at email@example.com