US. Department oI?Jnsticc United States Attantq' District of Mankind Stephen Schattng Suite 400 DIRECT: ?Ila-209.4800 Atting UnitaIStaterAtwmn? MS. (liar-law tmv- ?Mortar? Step hm uniojgor .IID 2120! I 9 410-952- ml February I 5, 20l 8 Honorable Marilyn Mosby State?s Attomey of Baltimore City CONFIDENTIAL 120 East Baltimore Street, 9th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Re: G.T.T.F. Trial Dear Ms. Mosby As you know, on January 3, 20l 8, former Baltimore Police Department Sergeant Wayne Jenkins pled guilty to multiple charges in two criminal cases, United States v. Gouda, Cr. No. CCB 17- 106 and United States v. Jenkins, Cr. No. CCB l7-638. In the factual statement allocution made by Jenkins, which was included in his written plea agreement, Jenkins admitted to the following: Alerting Members of the Comping to mm the?; gum?; gaping 56. JENKINS learned that Gondo, Rayam. or both of them, were under investigation from other BPD of?cers and from an Assistant State's Attorney in the Baltimore City State?s Attorney's Of?ce. In approximately June 2016, JENKINS learned from a BPD o?icer that there was a federal wiretap on Gondo's phone. JENKINS shared this information with Hersl. Later on October 5, 2016, JENKINS spoke with an Assistant State?s Attorney who told him that Rayam was tmder investigation for lying and stealing. JENKINS then shared that information with Rayam. have reviewed materials related to the above admission that Jenkins made under oath during his guilty plea. Ihave also spoken with the prosecutors and the lead FBI agent. Because of legitimate conoems expressed by the investigative team, I have decided @1151 providing you withevidence acquired by the FBIthatwasnotdisclosed herein with a factual summary of non-public information evidence related to I ask that you keep it con?dential. The G.T.T.F. investigation arose out of a DEA investigation into a drug organiu?on selling heroin on the Alameda in Northern Baltimore City. This investigation led to a federal indictment of ?ve individuals and to a federal criminal case. sub nom. United Storm v. Shropshire. et al. (CCB- 16-5 I). A conversation that was acquired via a federally -. wiretap indicated that Momodu Condo, a Baitirnore City police officer, was i in assisting the efforts of the drug organization. Further investigation led to the G.T.T.F. unit and its members. As part of this effort, the FBI placed a recording device in the BPD vehicle used by Detectives Gondo and Jemel Rayam. On October 5, 2016, wiretap monitors heard an exchange between Gondo and Evodio Hendrix, one of Gondo?s co-defendants who has pled guilty, wherein Gondo related a conversation he had just had with Detective Wayne Jenkins. Gondo told Hendrix that Jenkins had spoken with a female ASA who told Jenkins that some members of the G.T.T.F. were under federal investigation. The conversation between Gondo and Hendrix re?ected skepticism about being under federal investigation. it appears that Gondo was present when Jenkins had the phone call with the ASA but could not hear the content. Gondo said Jenkins did say it could be the feds, but Gondo and Hendrix seemed not to believe that. Gondo cited prior police corruption cases, e. g. King and Murray, Sylvester, Richburg, by name, and noted the length of time that those investigations took compared to the length of time Jenkins claimed the federal investigation had been on-going (5 years). The recorded conversation was alarming to the FBI because it indicated that the investigation had been compromised. The FBI made efforts to identify the leak. Since Gondo indicated that Jenkins was advised of the federal investigation in a phone call from a female ASA, we obtained the phone records of Jenkins' cell phone. That identi?ed a 17 minute phone call between Jenkins and a phone tied to ASA Ana Mantegna on October 5, 2016. The defendant police of?cers were arrested on March 1, 2017. At Jenkins' detention hearing, the United States cited the tip- off as one of the reasons detention was necessary. On April 10, 2017, FBI Task Force of?cers were transporting Jenkins from Talbot County Detention Center to the Federal Courthouse in Baltimore. Jenkins attempted to engage the TFO in a conversation, and speci?cally, Jenkins said that he had ?information on the Assistant State?s Attorney who leaked the information.? At that point in time, there had been no proffer sessions with Jenkins and the FBI. What was known was that Jenkins told Gondo that be learned from a female ASA that there was an investigation into members of the that there is a 17 minute phone call on October 5, 2017 (shortly before the Gondo Hendrix recorded conversation) between Jenkins and a phone identi?ed to ASA Ana Montague; and that Jenkins, on April 10, 2017, wanted to identify the ASA leak. Negotiations regarding a possible plea agreement with Jenkins were not progressing so this Of?ce sought and obtained a superseding indith against Jenkins, Hersl, and Taylor that added certain robberies and handgun counts that included mandatory penalties. Thereafter, Jenkins, on July 17, 2017, agreed to enter into a proffer agreement under whose terms he agreed to proffer sessions with the FBI. In the ?rst proffer session, Jenkins was asked whether he was warned about the investigation. He indicated that he was advised by several people inside the Baltimore Police Department (whom he named) and ASA Anna Mantegna. Jenkins said Mantegna advised him to Magnum (emphasis aided)- Jenkins said that althoush Montcalm did not any we. .. . investigation, he drew that inference. In terms of how Ms. Mantegna would have known . --.-, the existence of an investigation, it is perhaps signi?cant to note that Jenkins advised that he had been explicitly told by a BPD of?cer that there was a federal investigation and In any event, Jenkins ultimately decided to plead guilty to multiple counts in the two cases cited above. The terms do not provide for cooperation and sets the sentence at between 20 and 30 years. The statement of facts that supports the guilty plea and will signi?cantly inform the eventual sentence to be imposed was the subject of considerable negotiation with defense counsel, including paragraph 56 quoted in ?ill above On January 16, 20 8, ASA Ana Montegna was interviewed by an FBI agent and a TFO assigned to the FBI. In the interview, Ms. Mantegna said she learned from a colleague that Rayam had caused the State to lose a Franks hearing in a case involvin a defendant named Zachary Newsome. She then had a conversation*about Rayam?s testimon in the Franks hearin . Ms. Montegna stated that she was aware of Rayam?s history of being investigated by lntemal Affairs. She said she cannot recall how she came to associate Rayam with working with Jenkins. In any event, she continued that she had a phone conversation with Jenkins on October 5, 2016, in order to warn him about Gondo and Rayam. She was emphatic in waming Jenkins that cases with Rayam?s involvement were not prosecutable. She recalled telling Jenkins that ?Those guys are crooked, dirty. Watch them l?ce a hawk." Ms. Montegna?s explanation seems to support a version of her interaction with Jenkins on October 5, 2016, that is not a tip- off of a criminal investigation. What is troubling with Ms. Montegna?s narrative is that according to her, the reason for the call is Rayam?s conduct in the Newsome case Franks hearing. But she warns Jenkins about both Rayam and Gondo )"Those guys. . .Watch them. . Ms. Mantegna also informed the agents that she had a conversation about Ra hearing As not above, Jenkins a Government that told him that there was a federal wiretap on Condo. The obvious question that this raises is that if all that she knows about this in October, 20l6, is that Rayam failed at a Franks hearing, Why is she warning Jenkins about Gondo? A fair inference, I think, is that she learned more about this in her conversations with-am] passed the information onto Jenkins. 1 have no basis to believe she knew Jenkins was corrupt. And, at this point, 1 do not see a basis to pursue any federal charges against Ms. Mantegna. We have taken care not to identify Ms. Mantegna in our pleadings. When I ?rst advised Mike Schatzow about this development, I told him what we knew and how we knew it. This was at a point of time before we had the proffer sessions with Jenkins. I allowed that it was possible that there was a non-criminal explanation or that the evidence may not reach a stage where can' charges would be sustainable or appropriate. Cc: Michael Schatzow Deputy State's Attorney