E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

APPENDIX
In Support of Defendant’s Petition for Relief

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Exhibit A – Criminal Complaint..................................................................................................1
2. Exhibit B – Dec. 5 2017 Trial Transcript Excerpts.....................................................................3
3. Exhibit C – Affidavit of Grant Woodard...................................................................................16
4. Exhibit D – Sedlock Interview, Sept. 2 2015.............................................................................18
5. Exhibit E – Sedlock Interview, Sept. 2 2015 (Audio Recording)..............................................21
6. Exhibit F – Sedlock Interview, Oct. 14 2015.............................................................................22
7. Exhibit G – Sedlock Interview, Oct. 15 2015............................................................................25
8. Exhibit H – Mitch Parker Interview...........................................................................................27
9. Exhibit I – Danielle Daniels Interview......................................................................................29
10. Exhibit J – Matt and Michelle Kamerick Interview.................................................................32
11. Exhibit K – Brad Calder Interview..........................................................................................35
12. Exhibit L – Wendy Bonnett Interview.....................................................................................38
13. Exhibit M – Brittney Jans Interview........................................................................................42
14. Exhibit N – Shannon Stewart Interview..................................................................................45
15. Exhibit O – Scott Peasley Notes..............................................................................................47
16. Exhibit P – Rick Schaff Notes.................................................................................................50
17. Exhibit Q – Email from Jocelyn Richards...............................................................................52
18. Exhibit R – Lt. Bigaouette Notes.............................................................................................53
19. Exhibit S – Kathy Willoughby Neighborhood Questionnaire.................................................58
20. Exhibit T – McDonald Interview.............................................................................................60
21. Exhibit U – John Clymer Interview.........................................................................................68
22. Exhibit V – McDonald Polygraph (Audio Recording)............................................................70
23. Exhibit W – Dec. 11 2017 Trial Transcript.............................................................................71
24. Exhibit X – Audio Recording June 22, 2015...........................................................................73
25. Exhibit Y – Audio Recording June 22, 2015...........................................................................74
26. Exhibit Z – Curt Seddon Deposition Excerpts.........................................................................75
27. Exhibit AA – Curt Seddon Interview June 19 2015 (Audio Recording).................................79
28. Exhibit BB – Pl. July 2016 Subpoena to DCI..........................................................................80
29. Exhibit CC – DCI Mot. to Quash, filed July 11, 2016.............................................................83
30. Exhibit DD – Pl. Notice of Resolution, filed August 2016.....................................................89

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

31. Exhibit EE – Pl. April 2017 Subpoena to DCI........................................................................91
32. Exhibit FF – Pl. June 2017 Subpoena to DCI..........................................................................98
33. Exhibit GG – Def. Reply to Pl. Res. to Def. Mot. to Quash, filed June 16 2017..................124
34. Exhibit HH – Pl. Nov. 2017 Subpoenas to Law Enforcement Officers................................134
35. Exhibit II – Def. Mot. to Quash, filed Nov. 2017..................................................................163
36. Exhibit JJ – DCI Joinder of Def. Mot. to Quash, filed Nov. 6, 2017....................................166

 E-FILED
FECR029316
- 2017
DEC OF
18 08:00
AM COURT
MARION
E-FILED 2018 MAY05631
30 12:08
PM MARION
- CLERK
DISTRICT
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Def.Appx.000001

 E-FILED
FECR029316
- 2017
DEC OF
18 08:00
AM COURT
MARION
E-FILED 2018 MAY05631
30 12:08
PM MARION
- CLERK
DISTRICT
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Def.Appx.000002

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

1
1
2
3
4

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
BILLY DEAN CARTER,
BILL G. CARTER and ESTATE
OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER by
and through
BILL G. CARTER, Executor,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

vs.

7

JASON G. CARTER,

8

Defendant.
_________________________

9
10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. LACV095809
TRANSCRIPT OF
JURY TRIAL
(VOLUME I of IX)

The above-entitled matter came on before
the Honorable Martha L. Mertz, Judge of the Fifth
Judicial District of Iowa, commencing at
10:09 a.m., December 5th, 2017, at the
Marion County Courthouse, Knoxville, Iowa.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000003

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

8
1
2
3
4
5

attorney Peterzalek.
Did I say it right?
MR. PETERZALEK:

You said it absolutely

correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT:

Thank you.

To address the

6

issues that he thought were going to be facing

7

the Court.

8
9

Okay?

MR. PETERZALEK:

Sure, Your Honor.

As

you've pointed out, there was an agreement to

10

provide certain information to the civil

11

litigants in this case.

12

think we've determined, has been complied with.

13

At least to the extent that there would be any

14

significant disagreement, that information has

15

been exchanged among the parties.

16

issue is the extent of the testimony of the DCI

17

witnesses, which include both DCI lab personnel

18

and investigators, special agents from the DCI.

19

And that agreement, I

And then the

And with respect to the extent of the

20

testimony and the concern that I had on behalf of

21

my clients and the concern my clients had is what

22

do they testify to?

23

limit their testimony essentially to the

24

information that has been exchanged amongst the

25

parties and logical extensions of that, including

And the issue is, do they

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000004

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

9
1
2

background information and things like that.
And that's what I wanted to make a record

3

on is to present to the Court our argument that

4

that is what, in fact, the testimony of these DCI

5

personnel should be limited to.

6

And then, also, there's the separate

7

issue with respect to Trooper Thorup who did some

8

investigation also on behalf of the DCI that was

9

amongst the information that was not provided to

10

any of the parties.

11

that wasn't provided, I think the position of the

12

DCI and the position I'm presenting to you,

13

Judge, is that then those witnesses should not be

14

allowed to testify to those issues.

15

And if it was information

I think that's really it in a nutshell.

16

I know, as you've pointed out, we've spent a lot

17

of time talking about it off the record.

18

think I've narrowed it down to that issue, and

19

that would be our position on that, Judge.

20
21
22
23

THE COURT:

Okay.

But I

Thank you.

Plaintiffs, what is the plaintiffs'
position on this?
MR. WEINHARDT:

Your Honor, first of all,

24

although I think we made it an exhibit in June,

25

we have in front of the Court the e-mail exchange

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000005

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

10
1

of -- between myself, Mr. Peterzalek, and

2

Laura Roan and Ed Bull, all representatives of

3

the State or Marion County from June of this

4

year, and the subpoena to which it refers.

5

think we should mark those as Court's Exhibits

6

for today's proceedings just to make the record

7

clear.

8
9

And I

I understand that the State is permitting
testimony and has produced documents, to the

10

extent that such documents exist, in response to

11

Items 1 through 7 of the subpoena.

12

that there is any disagreement, it would only be

13

this:

14

reasonable follow-up questions, as is the

15

defense, and background questions about those

16

items and that our inquiries should not be unduly

17

restricted.

18

To the degree

That I believe that we are allowed to ask

So, for example, we believe that when the

19

fingerprint examiner testifies about the

20

existence of fingerprints of Jason Carter on the

21

gun safe, that is important evidence in this

22

case; that she should be allowed to testify where

23

those fingerprints were located.

24

be permitted to do that, even if the State has,

25

to date, withheld the document from us that would

EXHIBIT B

And she should

Def.Appx.000006

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

13
1

investigation that we know that he did and that

2

he disclosed.

3
4
5

THE COURT:

All right.

And on behalf of the defense?
MR. WANDRO:

Your Honor, we're reiterating

6

the motions to quash.

It's our position that

7

none of the DCI agents or the other officials

8

related to law enforcement should be able to

9

testify in this case.

We believe that we have

10

been prejudiced by the fact that we were not

11

privy to any of these agreements; we weren't

12

parties to it.

13

all of the DCI's records.

14

exculpatory evidence.

15

We don't have the full access to
It may contain

With respect to the discovery issues, I

16

believe that the plaintiffs in this case have

17

identified virtually all law enforcement

18

officials as potential witnesses.

19

therefore, you know, up until April of this year,

20

until Mr. Weinhardt got into the case, this case

21

was solely going to be tried on the evidence that

22

Bill Carter was able to produce and not the DCI.

23

And,

And so for these reasons, we ask that,

24

again, all of the reports and all of the DCI and

25

law enforcement officials be prohibited from

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000007

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

14
1

testifying.

2

case be continued to such time as law enforcement

3

makes a final decision or Ed Bull, the county

4

attorney, makes a final decision as to whether

5

this case will be prosecuted or not.

6

And we also, again, move that this

THE COURT:

My ruling on the -- on the

7

matter of the -- well, what law enforcement can

8

testify to is the same as it was previously.

9

for the purposes of our record and for

10

clarification -- because, frankly, I didn't

11

remember it.

12

subpoena, it's starting to ring a bell.

13

in fact, it does ring a bell.

14

to recite these so it's fresh in everybody's

15

mind.

16

But

Now that I'm looking at the
But --

But I'm just going

The agreement, as I understand it -- and

17

I have some e-mail -- e-mail information that

18

says:

19

documents, whether in print, audio, or video

20

reflecting or relating to interviews or

21

conversations with Jason Carter regarding the

22

death of Shirley Carter.

23

in print, audio, or video reflecting or relating

24

to the interview with Bill G. Carter regarding

25

the death of Shirley Carter.

1-7 on the subpoena, which are the

The documents, whether

EXHIBIT B

The report or
Def.Appx.000008

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

19
1

law enforcement officer because that's what you

2

do in response to discovery.

3

Now, see, if they hadn't done that, the

4

issue would be you didn't tell us about them.

5

this instance, they did tell you about them.

6

question then becomes to what extent was that

7

information available to Plaintiffs and could the

8

defense have obtained that information by simply

9

calling up the trooper and saying, hey, tell us

10

In
The

what you did.

11

If there was a meeting between the

12

defense and the trooper and the trooper kind of

13

cut off what they were talking about because

14

there was some issue about the clarity, then the

15

Court is going to say, upon the defense's

16

request, if there was notice of the witness, I'll

17

allow the witness to testify.

18

wants time to meet with that witness with or

19

without their attorney present to -- regarding

20

inquiries, then I'm going to let them have that

21

time.

22

not continue the trial.

23

motion.

24
25

But if the defense

I think they're entitle to it.

But I will

So I'm denying your

Was that sufficiently vague for
everybody?

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000009

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

20
1

MS. KANNE:

Your Honor, for the record,

2

Trooper Thorup was at our meeting with the DCI

3

agents where we were asking questions and were

4

instructed that we were not to ask questions that

5

went beyond the scope of the reports.

6

MR. FAUTSCH:

The same is true for us.

7

MR. PETERZALEK:

Neither party has been

8

apprised of what Trooper Thorup's testimony would

9

be or what his report contains.

And they

10

don't -- neither party has that report, as far as

11

I know.

12
13
14

MR. WEINHARDT:

Well, we don't have the

report.
On other occasions, Trooper Thorup has

15

told people on our side what it was that he did

16

and what the results were.

17
18
19

THE COURT:

So we have third-hand

information?
MR. WEINHARDT:

Well, no.

I mean, I think

20

he's talked to Ron and Carly about it.

21

he's talked to our client about it.

22

remedy for that is to simply allow everybody to

23

talk to Trooper Thorup about his drive-time

24

analysis and give an opportunity for everybody to

25

talk to him before he takes the witness stand on

EXHIBIT B

I know

I think the

Def.Appx.000010

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

21
1

that topic.

2
3

THE COURT:

Do you have any objection to

that?

4

MR. PETERZALEK:

I think the sound you hear

5

is my forehead smacking on the table about now.

6

But --

7
8

THE COURT:
the agreement.

9
10

I'm not sure that's covered by

MR. WEINHARDT:

But I think it's covered by

the waiver.

11

MR. PETERZALEK:

I think everybody knows

12

that Trooper Thorup did a drive-time analysis.

13

was not aware that it was -- a substantial amount

14

of that information had been shared with one side

15

but not the other.

16

My -- what Alison indicated is exactly

17

correct.

18

with witnesses last week, that that was an area

19

that was not -- a report was not being provided

20

so they were not to inquire into that area of

21

Trooper Thorup.

22

So now we're in a little different situation

23

here.

24
25

I

I told both parties, under a meeting

MR. WANDRO:
to a report.

And both parties abided by that.

Judge, it's just not related

You know -- and again, does this

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000011

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

28
1

issue.

2

one time.

3

Just let us all talk to the trooper at

THE COURT:

Here's what's going to happen:

4

It's not covered by the agreement.

5

position of the DCI -- and this is consistent

6

with my original ruling.

7

the DCI that's information that shouldn't be

8

revealed, it won't be revealed.

9

case, you can't ask that question of the trooper.

10
11
12

If it's the

If it's the position of

I guess I don't know.

So if that's the

Does the DCI care

what the drive time was?
MR. PETERZALEK:

Well, do they care that

13

that information is released would really be the

14

question, I think.

15

I've explained before, Judge, is I've tried to

16

explain to my clients that they needed to try to

17

limit what they're going to be testifying to to

18

the information that's been provided because

19

that's the only rational way to do it.

20

already ruled on that.

21

been provided, as Mr. Wandro pointed out.

22

And the -- what I did, as

And we've

And that report has not

From the whole scheme of things, does the

23

DCI care, if that's your question, if

24

Trooper Thorup testifies to drive times, probably

25

not a whole lot.

Just to be perfectly honest

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000012

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

29
1

with everybody.

2

been provided.

3

acknowledged, they were not allowed to ask

4

Trooper Thorup those questions when they -- when

5

we were meeting with all of the witnesses last

6

week.

7

But that information has not
And as both parties have

MR. WEINHARDT:

8

with him.

9

to it?

10

And our client's in the cab

What possible privilege could attach

And that's his only basis to object.
THE COURT:

Okay.

But if your client is in

11

the cab with him, your client can testify how

12

long it took.

13

that question.

14

question.

15

We're not going to ask the trooper
You can ask your client that

MR. WEINHARDT:

Well, my client may not

16

have written down the exact minutes that it took

17

because he knew that there was a state agent

18

keeping close track of that.

19

it's quite the same.

20

THE COURT:

So I don't think

It's not covered by the

21

agreement, and that's -- that's what my ruling

22

was.

23

covered by the agreement and it's not a logical

24

extension or background, it's not allowed,

25

period.

I'm going to stick with that.

If it's not

End of story.

EXHIBIT B

Def.Appx.000013

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

106
1

A.

No, it was not over the radio.

2

Q.

Okay.

3

did you have any idea what had happened other

4

than that someone was suspected to be dead?

5

A.

6

causes as most of them are.

7

Q.

8

Shirley Carter's home, who was there?

9

A.

No.

So when you arrived at the scene,

I actually presumed it was natural

When you arrived at Bill and

As I arrived, Bill Carter and Jason Carter

10

were there.

11

Q.

12

property when you arrived?

13

A.

14

I pulled up into the driveway, they were in

15

between the house, the porch, the garage area in

16

that location.

17

Q.

18

when you arrived?

19

A.

20

and got out of the vehicle.

21

Q.

What did Bill Carter say to you?

22

A.

Something's happened to her.

23

shot.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

A.

He said she's been shot.

And where was Bill Carter located on the

They were both outside of the property.

As

Were Bill Carter and Jason Carter talking

Yes, they were talking to me when I arrived

She's been

What did Jason Carter say to you?

EXHIBIT B

There's two holes
Def.Appx.000014

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

126
1

approximately, from what I remember.

2

saw the actual time frames and they're accurate,

3

I could probably tell you more accurately.

4

Q.

5

first person that mentioned the defects in the

6

floor and the refrigerator to you?

7

A.

8
9

And one more question:

Who was the

I believe that would have been Jason.
MR. DANKS:

I have no further questions,

Your Honor.

10
11

Sure.

I -- if I

THE COURT:

Redirect -- or recross.

Pardon

me.

12

MR. WANDRO:

13

Just one question.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

14

BY MR. WANDRO:

15

Q.

16

two holes, it was your understanding he was

17

referring to the two holes that we just observed;

18

isn't that true?

19

A.

20

know is that there was two holes.

21

ask him to specify any further which two holes he

22

was talking to at the time.

23

probably not my job.

24

enforcement's job to clarify that.

25

Mr. Seddon, when Jason told you about the

I didn't know at that point in time.

MR. WANDRO:

All I

And I didn't

I felt that was

That would be law

Thank you.

EXHIBIT B

I have no further
Def.Appx.000015

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION 

 

BILLY DEAN CARTER, BILL G. CARTER
AND ESTATE OF SHIRLEY CARTER by
and through BILL G. CARTER, Executor,
Law No. LACV095809
Plaintiffs/Respondents,

vs.
AFFIDAVIT OF GRANT WOODARD
JASON CARTER,

Defendant/Respondent.

 

 

STATE OF IOWA 


COUNTY OF POLK 

1, Grant Woodard, being ?rst duly sworn upon oath, depose and states as follows:

1. I am an attorney who represented Jason Carter in Case No. LACV095809.

2. I also represent Jason Carter in the criminal action initiated against him by the
State.

3. We received signi?cant exculpatory evidence in the course of discovery

proceedings in the criminal matter beginning in February of 201 8. These reports
include, but are not limited to:

Interview of Robert Joseph Sedlock on September 2, 2015

Audio Recording of Interview of Robert Joseph Sedlock on September 2, 2015
Interview of Robert Joseph Sedlock on October 14, 2015

Interview of Robert Joseph Sedlock on October 15, 2015

Interview of Mitch Parker on October 16, 2015

Interview of Danielle Daniels on October 24, 2015

Interview of Matthew and Michelle Kamerick on October 23, 2015
Interview of Brad Calder on April 20, 2016

Interview of Wendy Bonnett on January 5, 2018

Interview of Brittney Woodson ans on January 5, 2018

Interview of Shannon Stewart on June 20, 2015

Jocelyn Richards Tip to Law Enforcement on June 24, 2015

Notes of Lt. Brian Bigaouette

Kathy Willoughby Neighborhood Canvas Questionnaire

Notes of Agent Scott Peasley

Notes of Agent Rick Schaaf



E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Interview of Michael McDonald and polygraph test result
Interview of John Clymer

Audio Recording of Michael McDonald Polygraph Examination
Several Audio Recordings from June 22, 2015

4. This evidence was unavailable to us in the civil trial and could not have been
obtained with reasonable diligence.

5. In January 2018, Defendant?s counsel was unaware of any speci?c allegations
that the Followill brothers had murdered Shirley Carter. Defendant?s counsel had
no knowledge of individuals known as Wendy Bonnett or Brittney .l ans.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

 

Grant Woodard

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of May, 2018.

Z7 /3i? 

A .9 HOPE BURTON Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa

a Combsion Number 805147

2. My Comission Expires
June 30. 2020

 

 

 

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

15033621

CASE:

Typed By: S/A MARK LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

SIA MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:
SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:

ROBERT JOSEPH SEDLOCK

OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY: KLA/266203

MALE
WHITE
,,

SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
2:20 PM
MARION COUNTY JAIL (KNOXVILLE, IOWA)
INTOX ROOM
SIA MARK LUDWICK, ISP TROOPER JON THORUP #357

ROBERT JOESPEH SEDLOCK REQUESTED TO TALK TO
NARCOTIC DETECTIVES ON 01/02/2015 . DURING THIS INTERVIEW
AND AFTER 50 MINUTES INTO SPEAKING WITH NARCOTIC
DETECTIVE, SEDLOCK ADVISED THAT HE HAS INFORMATION ON
THE SHIRLEY CARTER HOMICIDE.

SIA Ludwick received a phone call on September 2, 2105, by a MINE Task Force
Detective (Knoxville Police Officer Derby) concerning a subject in custody at the Marion
County Jail. Detective Derby advised that ROBERT "JOE" SEDLOCK was attempting
to snitch off some drug dealers in the Marion County area so he can work off his
criminal charges and attempt to get his children back from the custody of OHS . Derby
advised he was giving names of known drug users/sellers in the area .

EXHIBIT D

Exhibit#: r~-1-~ ~

Def.Appx.000018

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - ROBERT JOSEPH SEDLOCK - (con't)

I, S/A Ludwick, and Iowa State Patrol Trooper Thorup conducted an interview at
the Marion County Jail. The interview was conducted in the intoxilizer room in the
secure jail. SEDLOCK was advised of his Miranda Rights and signed DCI Form 10,
witnessed by me and Trooper Thorup . The video was audio recorded and under video
surveillance of the jail.
SEDLOCK advised that he received information directly from JOEL FOLLOWILL.
He advised that JOEL FOLLOWILL told him on two different occasions that JOEL
FOLLOWILL, his brother JOHN FOLLOWILL, and MATT (LNU) were in the process of
burglarizing a home when the female homeowner (SHIRLEY CARTER) spooked them
and JOHN FOLLOWILL shot her twice . He advised that he was offered by MATT (LNU)
to purchase the .22 caliber rifle that he believes is the murder weapon.
SEDLOCK advised that JOHN was the shooter. He advised that a period of time
ago that JOHN and JOEL got into a fight over the fear that each would rat each other
out on the homicide act. He advised that they got into a fight where JOEL assaulted
JOHN FOLLOWILL with a baseball bat. He advised that MATT (LNU) also was
attempting to sell an AR-15 rifle but he doesn 't believe that rifle came from the scene of
the homicide. He advised that MATT is also attempting to sell a .22 caliber revolver
SEDLOCK advised that he believes MATT lives behind the bar (Dan's Village
Pump/3rd Turn Tavern) in the apartment that is nearest to the bar in Knoxville.
SEDLOCK advised that he assumed that both FOLLOWILL brothers were
questioned by law enforcement regarding the homicide.
SEDLOCK advised that MATT is the scout for the residences and decides on
which place to rob. He advised that they have completed other burglaries, but they
usually do them at night. He advised that they are looking for electronics, guns, and
drugs. He advised they like the pills (narcotics) and heroin.
SEDLOCK advised that CALLIE SHIN may know something about the homicide.
He advised that she dates MATT. He advised that CALLIE will start to talk about the
homicide, but then stops talking and "clams up" and won't talk about it anymore.
SEDLOCK advised that the FOLLOWILL boys don 't have cell phones typically.
He advised that JOEL lives in Harvey and the last he knew JOHN was living with
CHRIS BRAISE. He also advised that he spoke with JEFF SCHRADER since he has
been in jail and that JEFF was upset about the murder due to it was close to his
parents' home . He advised that he JEFF SCHRADER was questioned upset with JOEL
FOLLOWILL because he had recently stayed with JOEL FOLLOWILL and he shared

2

EXHIBIT D

Def.Appx.000019

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - ROBERT JOSEPH SEDLOCK - (con't)

with JOEL FOLLOWILL how upset he was about the homicide. He furthe r advised that
he was upset that JOEL FOLLOWILL didn 't tell him about the homicide.
SEDLOCK admitted that he heard that MATT had shot a person twice but didn 't
know if it was a man or a woman , and further stated he didn 't know if they lived or died .
SEDLOCK advised that he is from Knoxville and knows the CARTER family . He
advised that he assumes the burglaries are being conducted at night. He advised that
MATT thinks he does
The Interview concluded at approximately 3:00 PM .

END OF INTERVIEW

3

EXHIBIT D

Def.Appx.000020

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

EXHIBIT E
(SEPT. 2, 2015 AUDIO RECORDING OF
SEDLOCK INTERVIEW)
Please refer to the audio recording provided
in electronic format.

EXHIBIT E

Def.Appx.000021

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Marion County Sheriff's Office
Interview Summary Report
Prepared by:

Detective Reed Kious

Interviewer:

Detective Kious

Interviewee:

Robe1i "Joey" Sedlock

Subject:

Jnfo1mation for case 15-013921

On October 14tl1, 2015 I at approximately 1730 hours, Detective Reed Kious, attempted to make contact
with Robert "Joey" Sedlock (DOB: 10.24.1969) at 514 East Douglas Street, Knoxville Iowa. This is his last
known address; he has a cell phone number of 641-891-4502 and an alternate cell phone number of 641-8200994. I was directed to Mr. Sedlock via Special Agent Mark Ludwick of the Iowa Depa1iment of Criminal
Investigation. SA Ludwick previously spoke to Mr. Sedlock and stated he may have inf01mation on the
homicide of Shirley Caiier; specifically the location of the weapon used.
I knocked on the door of.the aforementioned residence and made contact with Mr. Sedlock. I identified
myself as a law enforcement officer and produced my credentials. I info1med him of my reason for the visit;
Mr. Sedlock stated there was someone inside and wished to speak outside the home. Mr. Sedlock stated he only
"heard what you could hear on the street". I stated I couldn't promise him compensation for the firearm, but did
state I would speak to the Department of Criminal Investigation and pass along any information regarding his
assistance. He stated the DCI knew what he wanted; the charges from his children's cases dropped. Mr.
Sedlock stated he talked to someone who stated "that women seen him". Mr. Sedlock would not reveal his
source. He stated he didn't believe Joel Followill "pulled the trigger". Mr. Sedlock briefly mentioned the name
"Mike", but changed it to Matt Kamerick as pulling the trigger. He also named Jon Followill as a paiticipant in
the crime.
I then brought Mr. Sedlock to my unmmked vehicle where we discussed the case futther as I drove
around town. I asked Mr. Sedlock where he first heard of the aforementioned person's involvement and from
whom. He stated he "heard about it before it happened", that "they were planning this big heist" for guns,
drugs, and pills. Mr. Sedlock further explained that pills are mainly what Joel, Jon, and Matt steal; especially
dilaudid. Mr. Sedlock had trouble remembering Matt Kamerick's last name, but stated he now lived in Pella
and liked to brag about his crimes. Mr. Sedlock stated Joel was "freaked out" about the crime. I stated I had an
additional source, Mitch Parker, coming in to talk to me. Mr. Sedlock stated he had previously talked with
Mitch about the crime a "couple of weeks ago", but was previously avoiding Mr. Parker due to a fa lling out that
occuned 17 years ago.
Mr. Sedlock stated he believed he could get the "gun" from Joel. Mr. Sedlock fmiher stated he thought
Matt Kamerick had the firea1m. He stated they had a .22 rifle that used to be Roger Shinn's and that Matt was
the one who "robbed all the guns" from Mr. Shinn and "everything else that they're trying to blame on me".
Mr. Sedlock stated Rory Pearson supposedly went to Colorado and may have knowledge of the crime; he

.. ~l BIT #

EXHIBIT F

______

...:.-

Def.Appx.000022

1:;2-

/y(

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

thought Rory might talk if questioned. Mr. Sedlock again stated he thought he could get Joel or Matt to tell him
where the "gun" was. I asked what price would be placed on the rifle or if he would want to trade for it; Mr.
Sedlock stated he would be able to buy it. Mr. Sedlock then doubled back saying that Joel and Matt know he
(Mr. Sedlock) doesn't like to buy guns and would be suspicious of the request. Mr. Sedlock then stated he has
been offered guns by Matt and Joel in the past; Mr. Sedlock then stated he wouldn't want to buy the gun as it
would raise "red flags", but would be willing to set up the deal with the provision he would not be charged for
doing so. I reassured him if that occuiTed, it would be documented beforehand.
Mr. Selock then stated he wanted to get something about the "juveniles" on paper; I took this to mean in
consideration for his help the charges he and his family were facing would be dropped. Mr. Sedlock then
offered to talk to Joel that night; he stated Joel was "bouncing around town" (Knoxville) and had previously
been in Harvey. Mr. Sedlock stated Jo~! and Jordan were recently staying in Des Moines and that Jason
Beaman had recently dropped them off at Chris Brees' s place. Records show Mr. Brees at 1329 South Lincoln,
Lot 55 in Knoxville. Mr. Brees called the Marion County Sheriff's Office in April of2015 and gave an address
of 1207 East Marion Street in Knoxville; this house is owned by Pam Goemaat. Mr. Sedlock then talked about
how the County Attorney "hates" him . I told Mr. Sedlock to tell me everything he knew.
Mr. Sedlock again stated it was a planned out burglary; this time he added he thought they had "hit
another one" or had previously stolen from her (Mrs. Ca1ter). Mr. Sedlock stated "they got in this house, they
got in this room", he stated the men then looked through the drawers, the door to the room shut so "she couldn't
get in". He stated they then exited through the window to go around. He then stated it "went bad" and "she
seen it". Mr. Sedlock then stops talking about the events at the house and references an event where Joel
Followill assaulted his brother, Jon with a baseball bat.
This event is known to law enforcement from varying sources, but Joel and Jon did not report it as they
are adverse to law enforcement. DATE OF THE INCIDENT IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME Mr. Sedlock
stated on the night Joel hit Jon with the bat, Joel came over after the assault and spoke with Mr. Sedlock. Mr.
Sedlock stated Joel said he thought Jon was going to come after him and then proceeded to tell Mr. Sedlock
about the murder. Mr. Sedlock stated that Joel didn't "tell me, tell me", but that Mr. Sedlock infetTed the nature
of the confession. Mr. Sedlock stated he doesn't give law enforcement information on people, but felt that since
a murder had occuned he should tell us what he knew. Mr. Sedlock stated he "isn't doing anything right now"
and that he has been "clean" for 15 days. Mr. Sedlock was arrested in September on a wanant. I redirected Mr.
Sedlock's attention tO the conversation between himself and Joel on the night of the assault.
Mr. Sedlock stated "they" said it was over by Melcher, by "babyface's" parents. Babyface was
identified as Jeff Schrader has a listed addres of 1668 501h Place, Melcher. This address is the registered
address of his parents, Carol and Michael. Mr. Schrader was atTested in August of 2015 for Domestic Assault
with injury and violation of parole. Mr. Sedlock stated that's how he connected that Joel's story was related to
the murder. I then asked if he stated they shot her; Mr. Selock reiterated Joel said she saw them, saw her face,
and they had to do something; that she would have been able to identify Joel. Mr. Sedlock stated he then said
something to the effect of they didn't have to shoot her twice.
I asked if he said what they used, Mr. Sedlock said a "22", a "rifle" is what Joel told him. Mr. Sedlock
then stated he didn't know where he got the "22'', but he remembered Joel said it was a "rifle'', but not what
caliber. Mr. Seldock then stated he put the Shinn burglary and the murder weapon together and that's how he

EXHIBIT F

Def.Appx.000023

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

thought what weapon it could be. Mr. Sedlock stated Matt Kamerick had a .22, .243, AK47, AR15, a cquple
pistols (possible a matching set of "3 8s"). I again asked if Joel had stated what type of weapon she was shot
with. Mr. Sedlock again stated the only identifier given was it was a "rifle". Mr. Sedlock then digressed about
how Matt was stupid and went th.rough a roof on a burglary and that Joe Emerson was with him.
I then discussed how to make contact with Mr. Sedlock in the future and took his contact information. I
again asked if he had a guy that could buy the weapon; he stated Dean Wells of Des Moines could buy the
weapon and it wouldn't bother him if it was "hot". I told Mr. Sedlock that I would be talking to DCI and the
County Attorney's office and informing them of the discussion and that I couldn't promise him anything. Mr.
Sedlock stated he could "probably" bring me a confession, he also stated that he knew it was getting to Joel and
that Mr. Sedlock knew Jon was already in Jail. Mr. Sedlock stated he was trying to get his legal issues taken
care of so he could deal with his family's juvenile legal issues. Mr. Sedlock stated he was not selling drugs
cunently, but that he used to so he didn't have to pay for his own.
I told Mr. Sedlock I would be contacting him later in the week to fmther discuss the info1mation. I
asked if his wife, Nicole, knew the inf01mation. Mr. Sedlock said she was there, but not in the same room. He
stated Nicole had "photographic memory" and that she would "truthfully know". Mr. Sedlock then redirected
the conversation to his child endange1ment charges and how the County Attorney and Judge are out to get him.
Mr. Sedlock stated his lawyer, Robert Conrad, was aware of this. I dropped Mr. Sedlock off near his residence.
The interview ends.

EXHIBIT F

Def.Appx.000024

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Sedlock Interview Summary 10.15.2015

Marion County Sheriff?s Office
Interview Summary Report

Prepared by: Detective Reed Kious
Interviewer: Detective Kious

Interviewee: Robert "Joey" Sedlock
Subject: Information for case 15-01392]

On the afternoon of October 19?, 2015 I, Detective Reed Kious, attempted to make
contact with Robert "Joey" Sedlock (DOB: 10.24.1969) at 514 East Douglas Street, Knoxville
Iowa. I was accompanied by Special Agent Mark Ludwick of the Iowa Department of Criminal
Investigation. This was a follow up to the previous day's interview at the same location with Mr.
Sedlock. We made contact with Mr. Sedlock and spoke to him at the rear of the residence. We
previously tried contacting Mr. Sedlock via the two numbers he provided to me; he did not
respond to the calls.

We informed Mr. Sedlock that Joel Followill and Jason Beaman were arrested the
previous night on burglary charges; Mr. Sedlock stated he was aware of this. Mr. Sedlock also
stated he now didn't think it was a .22 ri?e, but Jason Beaman was his source of information on
the ri?e. Mr. Sedlock said he needed to talk to Mr. Followill or Mr. Beaman about it, but now
didn't think Matt Kamerick would talk to him about it. Mr. Sedlock stated he had an additional
source, a female, but wouldn't name her. I believe this is Callie Shinn based on other information
received.

Mr. Sedlock stated Mr. Beaman was more "apt" to speak with him than law enforcement.
Mr. Sedlock thought he would be able to bond out. Mr. Seldock thought the two would have
gotten in trouble for heroin, not burglaiy. Mr. Sedlock stated Joel said he was going to Midtown
Tire to get some tires. Mr. Sedlock also stated he didn't think there were many burglaries Mr.
Followill got away with and that Mr. Followill?s father killed someone in a burglaly gone wrong.
Mr. Sedlock stated Jon would be uncooperative. Mr. Sedlock referred back to the assault
between Joel and Jon; he stated Joel was in the car and Jon punched out the windows as he
thought Joel was going to go to the cops. He again stated Joel grabbed the bat and beat Jon.

Mr. Sedlock then referenced the "breakdown" Joel had with him, he also stated Joel had a
break down with "a girl" (believed to be Callie Shinn). Mr. Sedlock stated she was in Knoxville
and he would call her to have her talk to us. Mr. Sedlock stated Joel told her the same things he

{?53
CASE i 5.- a i

  

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

told him. Mr. Sedlock said Joel was inside with another male and that Jon was outside. He
states the vehicle used was possibly a white SUV that had previously been stolen by the sister of
Mr. Sedlock's female source. Mr. Sedlock stated either Callie or Mr. Beaman would know where
Matt Kamerick was living in Pella.

Sedlock stated Rory Pearson might know some information on this as well. Mr.
Sedlock stated he thought. the weapon was hidden. Jeremiah Laird then showed up in Jason
Beaman's car and the interview was terminated.

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Marion County Sheriff's Office
Interview Summary Report
Prepared by:

Detective Reed Kious

Interviewer:

Detective Kious

Interviewee:

Mitchell Parker

Subject:

Information for case 15-013 921

On the afternoon of October 161h, 2015 I, Detective Reed Kious, spoke with Mitchell "Mitch" Parker
(10/1711976) reference the homicide of Shirley Carter. Mr. Parker met with me at the Marion County Sheriffs
Office. I know Mr. Parker from previous interactions as a law enforcement officer. Based on these interactions
I know Mr. Parker to have a problem with controlled substances; specifically methamphetamine. Mr. Parker
stated he wanted to meet with me face to face so I could know he was telling me the truth.
I thanked Mr. Parker for meeting with me and asked him what information he had to tell me . Mr. Parker
stated he wanted to talk to me about Joel Followill, Jon Followill, and Jeremiah Laird. Mr. Parker stated Mr.
Laird is a relative of the Carter's and that he knew the Carter's had pain pills and phentanol patches at the
house, that Jon Followill "pulled the trigger" and that the reason "that lady" was killed was for the medication.
Mr. Parker said he learned of this information from Joe Sedlock. Mr. Parker stated he was told Jon shot
her because he was not getting his way, that he believed the medication was coming in the mail, but that it
wasn't present on the day of the burglary. Mr. Parker added he heard something about a pond on the property,
specifically that before they shot her the third time they took her to the pond to drown her in order to obtain the
information. Mr. Parker stated he also heard this from Mr. Sedlock. Mr. Parker was very upset telling me this
information and stated that it weighed heavily on him. Mr. Parker stated he didn ' t believe Mr. Sedlock knew
where the murder weapon was.
Mr. Parker also said that he did not follow the murder investigation and was not aware of it until he
heard about it from Joe Sedlock. Mr. Parker stated he was no longer using methamphetamine, but had gone to
get some from Christine McCombs around August 2ih 2015 as he was having a difficult time with a DHS case.
He stated the drugs were not available at the time and ended up drinking instead. Mr. Parker stated he did not
consume drugs and offered to provide hair for follicle testing. Mr. Parker seemed distressed telling me this
information. Mr. Parker did appear to possess a clear frame of mind and to not be under the influence of drugs .
While at Ms. McCombs' Mr. Parker met with Robert "Joe" Sedlock. According to Mr. Parker, Mr.
Sedlock had just been released from the Marion County Jail. Mr. Parker stated he and Mr. Sedlock held a long
conversation while riding in a car driven by Amber Shinn. During this conversation, Mr. Sedlock stated he was
interviewed at the Marion County Jail by law enforcement reference the homicide that he was leading law
enforcement on, and that law enforcement should have questioned Joel , Jon, and Jeremiah. Mr. Parker then

Exhibit 12-15

EXHIBIT H

Def.Appx.000027

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

stated on the same ni ght of the conversation he hid two pistol cartridges in Ms. McCombs ' house as he believed
they may be associated with the murder weapon.
Mr. Parker said one cartridge was placed on a shelf behind a picture; the other was kicked underneath
the couch. Mr. Parker explained that he saw Joel Followill with a black and chrome pistol on that date and that
the cartridges were from that pistol. Mr. Parker stated after some time, Joel was asleep on the couch and woke
up in distress. Mr. Parker stated he heard Joel exclaim, "Jon, she won ' t quit screaming; Jon, she won' t quit
screaming". Mr. Parker stated Christine McCombs and Jason Wesley were present at this time, that Joel and
Jordan Durham were in the bedroom, and a Dillon were there when the gun was "out". Mr. Parker stated the
firearm was later sold through Ms. McCombs ' uncle.
Mr. Parker asked Ms. McCombs about the homicide, she stated he should look at his source; meaning
Joe Sedlock. Mr. Parker stated if the murder weapon was a high powered rifle it would most likely be at Martin
Laird ' s house; Martin is Jeremiah ' s father. Mr. Parker then spoke with me about his child custody case, I then
redirected to the conversation with Mr. Sedlock. I asked if Mr. Sedlock would have changed the names, Mr.
Parker stated Mr. Sedlock wanted Mr. Parker to trust him and thought he was telling him the truth. Mr. Parker
stated he believed Mr. Sedlock did this as he wanted Mr. Parker to be his "muscle" and that Mr. Sedlock had
attempted to recruit him to go to Eddyville to commit an assault on his behalf. Mr. Parker stated Jeremiah Laird
is an intravenous drug user, specifically dilaudid. Mr. Parker stated Jeremiah has told him he wouldn ' t have a
problem killing someone. Mr. Parker stated Jeremiah had "beat" Mr. Parker' s sister and kicked Mr. Parker' s
mother' s door in the past.
I asked why would the Followill ' s be involved in shooting someone if they had been caught committing
crimes before without resulting to violence, he stated he didn ' t know but didn ' t like the Followills or think they
were good people. Mr. Parker stated Joel bragged about assaulting Jon with a baseball bat over money. Mr.
Parker stated this assault occurred at Brandon Nilius ' s home. Mr. Parker stated Jon broke out Joel ' s windows in
retaliation for the assault.
In all, the interview lasted for approximately an hour and a half. Based on my previous experience with
Mr. Parker I believe him to be truthful during this interview. I do not believe the information he has obtained
and passed on is credible as it does not match the case facts and due to Mr. Sedlock' s past history and
statements regarding this case. The interview report ends.

Exhibit 12-15

EXHIBIT H

Def.Appx.000028

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CASE:

INTERVIEW:

15033621

Typed By: S/A LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:
SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:

DANIELLE MARIE DANIELS

OCCUPATION:
PHONE: . (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY: KLA/266203

FEMALE
WHITE

OCTOBER 24 , 2015
10:12 AM
PHONE INTERVIEW
S/A MARK LUDWICK

DANIELLE DANIELS MAY HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING JOEL
FOLLOWELL ASKING FOR A RIDE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
ON JUNE 19, 2015 .

At approximately 10:12 AM , on Saturday, October 24 , 2015 , I, Special Agent
Mark Ludwick , called the Heart of Iowa Area Substance Abuse Center in Cedar Rapids
at 319-862-1050 and left a message for a DANIELLE DANIELS.
At approximately 10:20 AM , on Saturday, October 24 , 2015 , I received a phone
call from 641-208-1918 from a wh ite female . The female identified herself as
DANIELLE MARIE DANIELS and confirmed her Social Security Number and date of
birth .
DANIELS advised she didn 't know any details about the murder of SHIRLEY
CARTER. She advised that last week her "baby daddy," RANDY VANCENBROCK,

EXHIBIT I

Exhibit # : 13-78

Def.Appx.000029

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - DANIELLE MARIE DANIELS - (con't)

asked her if she had heard anything about JOEL FOLLOWELL being involved in a
homicide in the Marion County area . He told her that he heard a rumor but couldn 't
believe that JOEL FOLLOWELL could be capable of murder.
She advised that she did hear that JOEL FOLLOWELL helped clean up blood at
a crime scene but didn't know anything more about that and that it was a rumor she had
heard from other individuals involved in the drug trade .
DANIELS advised there were several times that JOEL FOLLOWELL would
contact her via phone in the middle night while he was having an anxiety attack and
needed help. She recalls one time this summer while she had the stolen car of her
sister, MICHELLE KAMERICK, she did go to the residence of FOLLOWELL in Harvey,
Iowa , in the middle of the night and helped him come down . She doesn't recall any
other times this summer that she helped him score drugs or meet with him in the middle
of the night.
DANIELS advised that JOEL FOLLOWELL has been her best friend for years but
she has distanced herself from him since Christmas of 2014 , due to his narcotic
add ictions .
DANIELS advised that JOEL FOLLOWELL is a very street smart person and he
would never burglarize a residence in the middle of the day, especially when there are
cars parked in the driveway.
DANIELS advised that JOEL FOLLOWELL is a drug user but he has never
physically hurt anyone.
She advised that she can 't comprehend that JOEL
FOLLOWELL would ever burglarize a house in the middle of the day. She advised that
is not how he typically would perform . She advised that he loves his pills and
methamphetamine, but doesn 't like to burglarize but he has to steal drugs.
DANIELS advised that she is aware that JOEL FOLLOWELL has had firearms in
his possession . According to her, she was informed by GARRICK MESSMAKER that
JOEL FOLLOWELL attempted to sell him some guns this past summer. She advised
that MESSMAKER immediately recognized the guns to be stolen from a family member
of his but didn't turn FOLLOWELL into law enforcement and didn't take the guns back to
said family member. She advised she didn't know the family relationship . She advised
that GARRICK was upset about it but didn 't turn him in and she didn 't know why.
DANIELS advised that the circle of friends she has been associated with in the
past would always protect each other from law enforcement regarding the drug trade.
However, she advised that they would all rat on each other for crimes against kids or if a
crime ever put someone in danger outside of narcotics. She advised that when it

2

EXHIBIT I

Def.Appx.000030

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - DANIELLE MARIE DANIELS - (con't)

comes to homicide the entire circle of friends would be honest with law enforcement and
would come forward if they had any information before law enforcement came to them.
She advised that law enforcement wouldn 't have to come find them because they would
turn the person in right away. She advised that she just can 't comprehend that anyone
in her circle of friends, including JOEL FOLLOWELL, would ever commit murder.
DANIELS was asked to keep my phone number and if she felt like she ever
wanted to give information regarding any crimes in the Marion County or Des Moines
metro area she could call me during normal business hours. DANIELS was respectful
and polite during the interview and was forthcoming with information and didn't appear
to be dishonest in any way. She admitted drug use and purchases of drugs in recent
history. She advised that her goal is to stay drug free for the remainder of her life.
The interview concluded at approximately 10:35 AM.

END OF INTERVIEW

3

EXHIBIT I

Def.Appx.000031

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE:

15033621

Typed By: S/A MARK LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:
SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:

MATIHEWWAYNE KAMERICK

OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY: KLA/266203

MALE
WHITE

OCTOBER 23 , 2015
9:03 AM
ARBY'S PARKING LOT
PELLA, IA
S/A MARK LUDWICK

KAMERICK CONTACTED SA LUDWICK ON OCTOBER 22, 2015 AND
REQUESTED TO MEET WITH HIM AND TO CLARIFY SOME
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO HIM ON OCTOBER 20 , 2015

On October 20, 2015 , S/A Ludwick interviewed MATTHEW WAYNE KAMERICK
at his residence in Pella , Iowa . On October 22 , 2015, at approximately 7: 15 PM, S/A
Ludwick received a phone call on his cell phone from KAMERICK who requested to
meet with him somewhere other than a police station and his residence . KAMERICK
chose to meet with S/A Ludwick at the Arby's parking lot in Pella.
At approximately 9:00 AM , S/A Ludwick arrived at the Arby's restaurant.
KAMERICK approached S/A Ludwick's vehicle and requested that his wife , MICHELLE
KAMERICK, also be present for the interview. The interview took place in S/A
Ludwick's police vehicle .

EXHIBIT J

Exhibit#: 13-82

Def.Appx.000032

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - MATTHEW WAYNE KAMERICK - (con't)

MATI KAMERICK advised that he was not completely honest regarding
information he provided on Wednesday, October 20 , 2015 . He advised that he did sell
guns to ROGER SHINN in the summer of 2015 , and he now knows those guns were
stolen guns. He advised at the time he sold them he did not know they were stolen . He
advised that he later learned and believed that they were stolen from a farm in Marion
County a few weeks earlier. He advised that he did sell them to ROGER SHINN for
approximately six hundred dollars ($600 .00) for both guns and he cashed the check at
SHINN 'S bank , located in Knoxville, that same day.
KAMERICK advised that he is a methamphetamine user. He advised that he has
probably been in the vehicle during times that JOEL and JOHN FOLLOWILL have
committed burglaries . He maintains that he never knowingly participated in the
burglaries .
KAMERICK advised that after he processed the initial shock of being questioned
in a homicide investigation , he wanted to come clean with the misinformation provided
to SIA Ludwick on Wednesday. He advised that he wants to be completely honest
when it comes to any crime where someone is injured or killed. He advised that he is
well known in the narcotic trade in the Marion County area , but he wants to have no
association with homicide or the injury of any person and that is why he is coming clean
with the information about the firearms .
KAMERICK advised that he doesn't know any specific information regarding the
homicide of SHIRLEY CARTER. He advised he was aware of the homicide only
through public media sources and only paid minimal attention to the homicide because
it occurred in Marion County. He advised that he hadn 't heard anything in his circle of
friends until this past week and believed that it was only his circle of friends telling
rumors . He doesn't believe that any of his friends could be involved. He did advise that
he heard JOEL FOLLOWILL was connected to the homicide, but didn 't believe it until
law enforcement surprised him at his residence on Wednesday, October 20, 2015 . He
advised that even now that he has had time to process his thoughts he doesn 't believe
that JOEL FOLLOWILL would ever cross the line and harm anyone. KAMERICK stated
that it is not in FOLLOWILL'S nature.
MICHELLE KAMERICK spoke up for the first time and advised that she has
known JOEL FOLLOWILL her entire life and advised that he would never hurt anyone ,
other than his brother, and that it is not in his character. She advised that he is a doper
but not a killer. She advised that law enforcement should really speak with her sister,
DANIELLE DANIELS. She advised that DANIELS was a close friend to JOEL
FOLLOWILL and that she has helped him multiple times with his demons. She advised
that she recalls one time in the early summer of 2015 , where JOEL FOLLOWILL did call

2

EXHIBIT J

Def.Appx.000033

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - MATTHEW WAYNE KAMERICK - (con't)

her in the middle of the night and was agitated with anxiety. She advised that JOEL
FOLLOWILL was wanting a ride from his residence in Harvey, Iowa , but didn't know
where he needed to go. MICHELLE KAMERICK advised he was panicky and has
frequent episodes of anxiety when he is coming down from multiple day binges . She
advised that she never picked him up, but believes her sister, DANIELLE DANIELS,
may have picked him up. She advised that this may have been during the timeframe
when DANIELS had her vehicle and would not return it. She advised that DANIELS is
currently in a drug rehab center in Cedar Rapids , and she is attempting to get clean.
She advised that DANIELS would cooperate with law enforcement if she knows this is a
homicide investigation and not a narcotic investigation.
MICHELLE KAMERICK advised that her sister did have her car in early June
2015 . She advised that during this timeframe the tire on the rear driver's side had a
slow leak and they had the spare doughnut-sized tire on the car. She advised they
never had to have the tire repaired ; however, MATT KAMERICK advised he ultimately
fixed the tire himself. They both advised that the tires on the car now are the original
tires on the vehicle . MICHELLE KAMERICK granted permission for S/A Ludwick to
photograph the tires of the vehicle (Exhibit 13-828). S/A Ludwick did photograph the
four tires of the vehicle, along with the spare tire that was stored under the truck within
the vehicle.
S/A Ludwick encouraged them both to stay free from all criminal activity, to
include narcotic activity. They both assured S/A Ludwick that they were now clean and
they have the priority of raising their kids and having a positive loving family
environment for their children. The interview concluded with a positive attitude toward
law enforcement and they both advised that if they hear any information on the streets
or in their circle of friends regarding the homicide, that they would reach out to S/A
Ludwick immediately on his cell phone .
The interview concluded at approximately 10:10 AM and they both departed.

END OF INTERVIEW

3

EXHIBIT J

Def.Appx.000034

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE:

15033621

Typed By: S/A LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:

BRAD JAMES CALDER
3660 OSAGE AVENUE
VAN METER, IOWA
MALE
WHITE
MARCH 27, 1960
482-84-6570
UNION CARPENTER

SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC #:
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY:
TERESA/279012

CARPENTER

515-834-2444
APRIL 20, 2016
4:00 PM
POLK COUNTY JAIL
S/A MARK LUDWICK
DEA MIKE VAN FOSSEN
BRAD CALDER WAS IN CUSTODY ON FEDERAL DRUG CHARGES;
IN SPEAKING WITH DEA VAN FOSSEN, CALDER STATED HE KNEW
INFORMATION REGARDING A HOMICIDE IN MARION COUNTY AND
WANTED TO TELL LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH NOTHING FOR
EXCHANGE

This reporting agent, S/A Mark Ludwick, was contacted by S/A Mike Van
Fossen from the U.S. DEA Office out of Des Moines. S/A Van Fossen stated that he has
a subject in custody and during an interview with him, he stated he wanted to speak with
the DCI regarding a homicide in Marion County.
S/A Ludwick, S/A Van Fossen and Defense Attorney JOHN BURNS
representing CALDER met with inmate BRAD JAMES CALDER. The interview took place
within the Polk County Jail starting at approximately 4:05 PM, and concluding at 4:39 PM.
Exhibit #: 13-97

EXHIBIT K

Def.Appx.000035

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - BRAD JAMES CALDER - (con’t)
CALDER stated that he was heavily into using methamphetamine trade. He advised that
he would do just about anything in order to get and use methamphetamine. He denied pill
use or any other drug addiction.
CALDER advised that sometime during the fall of 2015, he met two girls that he
knows as JORDAN and KRISTA. He advised that they would obtain and use
methamphetamine together. He advised he had a sexual relationship with both of the
females. He advised he knew they were both homeless and had bad relationships with
their parents due to their heavy drug use and poor choices that they made in their lives. He
advised that he knew KRISTA had been married at one point, but due to drugs, the
marriage ended.
CALDER advised that JORDAN and KRISTA would purchase Dilaudid pills
from BECKY HOLTOM (phonetic). He described HOLTOM was dying of cancer and she
would sell her prescription Dilaudid pain pills to them.
CALDER advised that JORDAN was the girlfriend of JOEL FOLLOWELL. He
advised it was his understanding that they are no longer together. He advised that he was
present one night last fall when JOEL and JOHN FOLLOWELL got into a physical
altercation. He advised the weather was warm and they had on short sleeved tee shirts,
but is unable to remember the time frame, but believes it was last fall. He advised that he
wanted to leave the residence right away because he didn’t want any part or to witness
JOEL and JOHN FOLLOWELL assaulting each other. He advised he left and didn’t
witness the assault. He stated that he doesn’t remember why they were fighting or why
they were so angry with each other. He advised that he witnessed JOEL in the driveway
with a baseball bat and JOHN was attempting to get a knife from the kitchen.
CALDER advised that JORDAN informed him that JOEL and JOHN
FOLLOWELL were responsible for killing an elderly lady near Pleasantville. He advised
she was told that they beat her up. He advised that he was told that they were good for
breaking into residences to steal pills.
CALDER stated that he didn’t believe much about the FOLLOWELL boys until
the previous week. He advised that he was in jail with RANDY CASWELL and during
Bible study, the FOLLOWELL boys’ names came up in discussion. He advised that
CASWELL told him later in their jail cell that CASWELL and JOEL FOLLOWELL were cell
mates recently. CASWELL told him that JOEL FOLLOWELL told him that he was
questioned by state detectives and that the state detectives had attempted to put an
undercover police officer in the jail cell with him to obtain information from him. CASWELL
stated that JOEL FOLLOWELL told him he had nothing to do with the homicide.

2

EXHIBIT K

Def.Appx.000036

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - BRAD JAMES CALDER - (con’t)
CALDER described JOEL and JOHN FOLLOWELL to be taller than he was,
between one hundred fifty to one hundred sixty pounds, and to be approximately thirty
years of age. He believes he would recognize them both, but that he no longer associates
with them.
The interview concluded at approximately 4:39 PM.
END OF INTERVIEW

3

EXHIBIT K

Def.Appx.000037

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE:

15033621

Typed By: S/A LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:
SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC #:
EMPLOYMENT:

WENDY BONNETT
HOMELESS
FEMALE
WHITE
SEPTEMBER 13, 1977

OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:

DISABLED

DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY:
TERESA/279012

UNEMPLOYED

BLOCKED
JANUARY 5, 2018
3:30 PM
KNOXVILLE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
S/A LUDWICK

INFORMATION CAME FORWARD DURING THE INVESTIGATION
THAT WENDY BONNETT HAD INFORMATION REGARDING THE
HOMICIDE OF SHIRLEY CARTER

Note: The following is a summarized narrative of a recorded interview
conducted by this reporting agent. This summary is not offered as a complete
transcription of the dialogue that occurred during this interview. Please refer to the
audio/video recording for an exact account of the dialogue during the interview.
S/A Ludwick had made multiple attempts to locate BONNETT. S/A Ludwick had
gone to multiple residences and called multiple telephone numbers in attempts to locate
BONNETT. After multiple days, Ludwick received a phone call from a female who stated
she was WENDY BONNET. BONNETT advised that she didn't trust law enforcement and
did not want to speak with them in person, but would only speak on the phone. S/A
Ludwick advised BONNETT that they were going to speak in person and that he would
keep knocking on doors and calling people until she was located and that if she happens
Exhibit #: 13-102

EXHIBIT L

Def.Appx.000038

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - WENDY BONNETT - (con’t)
to have any illegal substances on her at the time she is located, she would be dealt with
accordingly and probably arrested. BONNETT made arrangements to meet with agent
Ludwick at the Knoxville Library on January 5, 2018.
BONNETT presented herself to S/A Ludwick on January 5, 2018, at the
Knoxville Library. BONNETT buys that she is couch surfing and does not have a
permanent residence. She advised that she is currently staying with TAYLOR SPRING at
an apartment near Dollar General in Knoxville. BONNETT advised that she doesn't know
anything about the homicide of SHIRLEY CARTER. BONNETT said that she's heard
many stories, but believed it was involving robbery and an insurance scam. She advised
that she has heard that her son had killed her.
BONNETT stated that MICHELLE DANIELS, JOSEPH SEDLOCK, JOHN
FOLLOWELL, and JOEL FOLLOWELL were involved in the homicide. BONNETT advised
that she has been told that JOEL FOLLOWELL, JOHN FOLLOWELL, and JOSEPH
SEDLOCK had all three shot her over patches and pills that SHIRLEY CARTER had
received. She advised that the three men knew that CARTER had received the opiate pills
because she was a distant relative of JEREMIAH LAIRD. She advised that JEREMIAH
told them that CARTER had just received pills and patches. BONNETT advised that the
three men had a pact that if one person pulled the trigger, all three men had to pull the
trigger and shoot.
BONNETT advised that she was in a car once after the homicide with JORDAN
DURHAM when DURHAM received a phone call from JOEL FOLLOWELL. She advised
that she could hear part of the phone conversation and knew the voice of JOEL
FOLLOWELL and knew it was him. She described that JOEL was in jail at the time and he
was crying. She advised that JOEL said several times that he didn't want to do it (shoot
CARTER), but she wouldn’t stop screaming so they had to shoot her. BONNETT describe
the conversation to be that JOEL FOLLOWELL shot and killed SHIRLEY CARTER
because she would not stop screaming, then JOHN and JOE also shot her with the same
gun.
BONNETT advised that she has no direct knowledge of the homicide in the
events that took place other than hearing the phone call of JOEL FOLLOWELL to
JORDAN DURHAM.
BONNETT gave a detailed story of how she went over to RORY PEARSON's
house to say goodbye because he was leaving town due to a head tumor, and that she
had found MATT KAMMERICK unresponsive in the house. She advised that
KAMMERICK had been beaten up severely and that he was unresponsive. She advised
that she didn't call EMS or law enforcement and that KAMMERICK woke up and was fine.
She alluded that the FOLLOWELL brothers and JOSEPH SEDLOCK assaulted
2

EXHIBIT L

Def.Appx.000039

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - WENDY BONNETT - (con’t)
KAMMERICK. She advised that JOSEPH SEDLOCK called her later the same day to ask
what she knew about the assault.
BONNETT advised that she first heard of the homicide while driving to Newton
with her then boyfriend, BILLY MCDONALD. She advised that she was in the vehicle
driving to Newton from Knoxville, believed to be the day of the homicide or the day after
the homicide. BONNETT advised that she would have driven a 2000 Isuzu Rodeo, being
silver or gold in color, registered to ALLISON KING at the time. She advised that
MCDONALD would have been driving his mother's blue minivan registered to DELORES
DUVALL. BONNETT advised that she would have stayed with MCDONALD at times at his
mother's house in Newton Park Apartments, which was by Courtyard Apartments.
BONNETT stated that she has never abused pills. She advised her drug of
choice is methamphetamine.
BONNETT advises she attempted suicide in the summer of 2014 by overdosing
on Oxycontin. She advised that she didn't die, but she just got sick and did not seek any
medical treatment for the overdose. She advised her doctor is at Primary Health Care in
Des Moines. She stated she has a history of multiple traumas.
BONNETT described JOHN FOLLOWELL to have a temper and to be cocky.
She advised JOEL FOLLOWELL is a fun-loving and outgoing guy. BONNETT said that
she has never seen JOSEPH SEDLOCK be violent or fight anyone. She advised that
she's heard stories that he's told about him being a badass, but knows that he's just a
talker.
BONNETT stated that she was born and raised in Bussey and Lovilla, Iowa.
She advised that she has lived in the Lovilla area in a house that has been since bulldozed
down.
BONNETT stated that JORDAN DURHAM is now with ELLIS, whom is a
bondsman in Des Moines. BONNETT advised that JOEL and JOHN FOLLOWELL have
both utilized ELLIS as a bondsman in the past and that is how JORDAN came to know
ELLIS.
BONNETT advised that she believes the gun utilized in the homicide to be a
long-barrel revolver. She advised she knows this murder weapon is now in the custody of
Knoxville Police Department due to an arrest of JEREMY MANSER. She advised it has
been long known that this revolver was utilized in the homicide. She advised that JIMMY
MITCHELL had also been attempting to get his hands on this long-barrel revolver utilized
in the homicide.

3

EXHIBIT L

Def.Appx.000040

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - WENDY BONNETT - (con’t)
Please refer to the digital audio recording of the interview for complete and
accurate details.
END OF INTERVIEW

4

EXHIBIT L

Def.Appx.000041

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE:

15033621

Typed By: S/A LUDWICK
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:

BRITTNEY WOODSON JANS
103 E. ROBINSON, #202
KNOXVILLE, IOWA
FEMALE
WHITE
JUNE 2, 1971

SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC #:
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY:
TERESA/279012

NOT EMPLOYED

641-871-0463
JANUARY 5, 2018
103 E. ROBINSON
KNOXVILLE, IOWA
S/A LUDWICK

S/A LUDWICK WAS CALLED BY WENDY BONNETT AND INFORMED
THAT AN UNKNOWN FEMALE HAS DIRECT INFORMATION
REGARDING THE HOMICIDE AND THIS PERSON KNOWS ALL
INDIVIDUALS WHOM “PULLED THE TRIGGER” AND KILLED SHIRLEY
CARTER

Note: The following is a summarized narrative of a recorded interview
conducted by this reporting agent. This summary is not offered as a complete
transcription of the dialogue that occurred during this interview. Please refer to the
audio/video recording for an exact account of the dialogue during the interview.
S/A Ludwick received a telephone call from a blocked number on his state cell
phone. The caller identified herself as a BONNETT and was requesting S/A Ludwick to
return to Knoxville because an unidentified female wanted to talk to him regarding the
Exhibit #: 13-103

EXHIBIT M

Def.Appx.000042

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - BRITTNEY WOODSON JANS - (con’t)
homicide of SHIRLEY CARTER, BONNETT advised that the persons whom pulled the
trigger(s).
S/A Ludwick met with a female who identified herself as BRITTNEY
(WOODSON) JANS. JANS advised that she has knowledge regarding the homicide of
SHIRLEY CARTER. She reported that she has previously given information about the
homicide to DNR Officer CJ Hughes and Marion County Detective Kious. She advised that
she has first-hand knowledge from CHARITY ROUSH that JOSEPH SEDLOCK, JOHN
FOLLOWELL, and JOEL FOLLOWELL were involved in the homicide. She advised that
they were in KALLY SHINN’s car at the time of the homicide.
JANS buys that she was supposed to go to Des Moines that day with JOSEPH
SEDLOCK, JOHN FOLLOWELL and JOEL FOLLOWELL. She advised that she didn't
know any of them very well, but that they had been hanging out and they wanted her to go
to Des Moines with them. She knows it was the day of the homicide, but she doesn't recall
the date of the homicide. JANS advised that she would have been high that day and
utilizing methamphetamines during the time of the homicide and during the time of the
story. She advised that they wanted her to clean out the car for them, indicating clean up
all the evidence. She advised they paid CHARITY RAUSCH one hundred dollars to clean
up the car. She advised that CHARITY went to her asking for advice to get out of the
situation.
JOSEPH SEDLOCK has admitted to pulling the trigger according to JANS.
JANS denies hearing it directly from SEDLOCK. She advised that she's heard this from
CHARITY ROUSH. She advised that JOSEPH SEDLOCK, JOHN FOLLOWELL, and
JOEL FOLLOWELL all had a pact that if one person pulled the trigger, they all would pull
the trigger and kill the person. JANS advised that she believed that the three men believed
SHIRLEY CARTER had received a fresh allotment of opiate pills. She did not know if
CARTER got the opiate pills in the mail or from a store front. JANS believes that all three
men pulled the trigger and shot her once.
She advised that KALLY SHIN, CHARITY RAUSCH, and TAYLOR JONES,
would have information about the homicide. She advised that TAYLOR JONES got rid of
the gun at a pawn shop believed to be in Des Moines. She believed the murder weapon to
be a handgun.
JANS advised that she was supposed to go to Des Moines and get pills with the
men (JOSEPH SEDLOCK, JOHN FOLLOWELL, and JOEL FOLLOWELL). She advised
that they had stopped over at TAYLOR SPRING’s house and invited her to go to Des
Moines with them. She advised that she didn't like them well enough and didn't hang out
with him; therefore, she chose not to go.

2

EXHIBIT M

Def.Appx.000043

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - BRITTNEY WOODSON JANS - (con’t)
JANS advised that SHIRLEY CARTER recognized JOEL and JOHN
FOLLOWELL because they were distant relatives. JANS buys that CHARITY cleaned out
her car when they she realized that the gun maybe in her vehicle. She advised that she
found a gun and had CORY FORD throw the gun into the lake. She advised that the gun
was actually her sons and was an illegal gun. She described the gun to be a handgun.
JANS advised that she has spoken to law enforcement when they came to her
house to question her then-boyfriend, GUY WELDON. She advised that the three men
killed SHIRLEY CARTER because either she refused to give them the pills or that there
was no pills at the house. JANS did not advise that the three men never obtained pills from
the murder scene.
Please refer to the digital audio recording for complete and accurate details of
the interview. JANS had nothing further to contribute to this investigation.
END OF INTERVIEW

3

EXHIBIT M

Def.Appx.000044

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE:

15033621

Typed By: SIA
CASE AGENT:

SIA MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:

SHANNON DEANN STEWART
279 PERRY STREET
LACONA, IOWA
FEMALE
WHITE

SEX:
RACE:
BIRTHDATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
PHONE:
(RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE :
INTERVIEWED BY:
PURPOSE:

scan PEASLEY

PROOFED BY:
CYNTH IA/263900

0612012015
4:45 P.M.
279 PERRY STREET
LACONA, IOWA
SIA scan PEASLEY AND SIA RICK SCHAAF
STEWART LIVED NEAR THE CARTER RESIDENCE AND WAS
INTERVIEWED PURSUANT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD CANVASS

On June 20 , 2015 , Special Agent Rick Schaaf and I, Special Agent Scott
Peasley, were conducting a neighborhood canvass of the area around SHIRLEY
CARTER'S residence. During that canvass, we interviewed SHANNON STEWART, who
lived at 279 Perry Street, Lacona , Iowa. It should be noted that the interview took place
inside my veh icle and the interview was recorded via my digital recorder. The following
report is a summary of the interview of STEWART. For further details regarding this
interview, please refer to the audio recording, which will be marked as an exhibit by the
case agent.
STEWART stated that BILL and SHIRLEY CARTER were very friendly people
and that BILL would plow her driveway when it snowed. STEWART stated that is how she
met BILL. STEWART stated that she lived at that property by herself for about 15 years.
Exhibit#: 7-11

EXHIBIT N

Def.Appx.000045

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

INTERVIEW - SHANNON DEANN STEWART - (con't)

STEWART said that she usually left for work between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and she
arrived home around 5:00 p.m. most days.
STEWART stated that she left for work later on Friday, June 19th. STEWART
thought she left around 7:05 a.m. STEWART stated that on Thursday, June 18th between
4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. there was a weird car in the area . STEWART described the car
as an old white Lexus that was rusty and had a loud muffler. STEWART described the car
as having a lot of rust on the side panels. STEWART said that there was a white man in
his 30s with dark hair driving the vehicle. She said that the car drove very slowly from the
direction of the CARTER'S house and then turned around in STEWART'S driveway.
STEWART said that the car then drove slowly back toward CARTER'S house. STEWART
said that she had never seen that vehicle before and she had not seen it since.
STEWART said that on Friday, June 19th in the morning , she heard a loud
noise. STEWART described the sound like farm equipment falling or a "clanging " sound .
STEWART said that she did not drive by the CARTER'S house that morning on her way to
work. STEWART said that she didn't see any other vehicles that morning .
STEWART said that BILL CARTER spoke with her about her neighbors who
used to rent property that was east of her house. According to STEWART, they had two
fires in a small timeframe in the last month . STEWART said that one fire destroyed the
garage and the other burned the house. STEWART said that she had called the sheriff's
office about the family on one occasion because she heard gunshots after an argument
took place . STEWART said that they were screaming at each other and then she heard
gunshots.
STEWART said that she did not believe the noise on June 19th was a gunshot.
She again described it as a "metal" sound . STEWART said that she had not spoken with
anyone about the investigation. STEWART stated that she did not have any surveillance
camera on her property.
The interview ended at 5:00 P.M.
END OF INTERVIEW

2

EXHIBIT N

Def.Appx.000046

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CASE:

15033621

CASE AGENT:
REPORTING AGENT:
TYPED BY:
PROOFED BY:

SIA MARK LUDWICK
S/A SCOTT PEASLEY
S/A SCOTT PEASLEY
CYNTHIA/263900

NARRATIVE - ACTIVITIES FOR S/A SCOTT PEASLEY THROUGH 06/22/2015

On June 20 , 2015, at approximately 8:24 a.m., I, Special Agent Scott Peasley,
received a telephone call from Special Agent in Charge Michael Motsinger. SAC
Motsinger requested that I respond to Marion County to assist with a death investigation . I
left my residence a few minutes later.
At approximately 10:00 a.m ., I arrived at the Marion County Sheriffs Office in
Knoxville, Iowa. When I arrived a briefing was already underway. I learned that SHIRLEY
CARTER was found dead in her home, located at 132 Perry Street in Lacona. CARTER
suffered at least one gunshot wound to her chest. SHIRLEY CARTER was found by her
son , JASON CARTER, who called 911. SHIRLEY'S husband was BILL CARTER who
was not home at the time.
I spoke with S/A Mark Ludwick who was the case agent. S/A Ludwick assigned
me to follow up on a few items.
At approximately 10:40 a.m., I called ERIC KELLER on his cellular telephone
(641) 861-0994. There was no answer and I left a message for KELLER.
At approximately 11 :03 a.m. I called TRACY WILKINS on his cellular telephone
(563) 357-6634 . WILKINS was the principal at Knoxville High School. I asked him about
obtaining surveillance video from the school from Friday morning . WILKINS told me that
he would need to contact SHELDON DAVIS and have him call me.
At approximately 11 :54 a.m., Deputy Reed Kious of the Marion County Sheriffs
Office interviewed CHARLES SMITH at Smith Fertilizer and Grain in Pleasantville. SMITH
said that he received a text message from JASON CARTER on Friday morning and
showed me the text message. SMITH had been delivering farm chemicals to JASON
CARTER over the past two weeks . For further details regarding the interview of
CHARLES SMITH, please refer to the interview report and audio recording of that
interview.

Exhibit#: 14-3

EXHIBIT O

Def.Appx.000047

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

NARRATIVE -ACTIVITIES FORS/A SCOTT PEASLEY THROUGH 06/22/2015 - (con't)

At approximately 1:33 p.m., I called ANTHONY SHULTZ at (641) 891-4725.
SHULTZ agreed to come to the sheriffs office for an interview. We arranged for the
interview to take place at approximately 3:00 p.m.
At approximately 2:42 p.m., I called ERIC KELLER and interviewed KELLER
over the telephone. It should be noted that KELLER was in Ankeny at the time and was
going to dinner with a friend later that evening . KELLER was the high school football
coach at Knoxville High School. KELLER stated that he believed that CHASE CARTER,
JASON CARTER'S son attended a workout Friday morning at the high school around 7:40
a.m. For further details regarding the interview of KELLER , please refer to the interview
report.
At approximately 3:01 p.m., Deputy Reed Kious and I interviewed ANTHONY
SHULTZ in an interview room in the sheriffs office. SHULTZ was a neighbor to BILL and
SHIRLEY CARTER. SHULTZ provided background information for the CARTER family.
SHULTZ said that the only thing out of the ordinary was that he saw an older white Ford
Explorer around 6:30 a.m. when he was outside his house. SHULTZ said that he noticed
the vehicle because it was very clean. For further details regard ing the interview of
SHULTZ, please refer to the interview report and the aud io or video recording .
Special Agent Rick Schaaf and I left the sheriffs office to conduct a
neighborhood canvass and follow up on calls that had been made to the sheriffs office.
The following are interviews that I conducted while on the canvass. For further details
regard ing the neighborhood canvass, please refer to S/A Schaafs narrative.
At approximately 4:45 p.m., we stopped at 279 Perry Street and spoke with
SHANNON STEWART. STEWART said that she heard a loud noise Friday morning , but
it sounded like farm equipment that had fallen , not a gunshot. STEWART said that she
saw a suspicious vehicle in the area on Thursday and described it as a very old Lexus with
a loud muffler and a lot of rust. STEWART said the vehicle drove toward her house from
the direction of the CARTER'S house, turned around and drove back toward the
CARTER'S house. STEWART said that she had had trouble with some neighbors whose
garage and house burned down . For further details regard ing the interview of STEWART,
please refer to the interview report and the audio recording of the interview.
At approximately 6:07 p.m. SIA Schaaf and I stopped at 1567 Highway S45 and
spoke with DANIEL BACON . BACON stated that he and his son , RYAN BACON , had
been riding a small motorcycle Friday morning from around 6:00 a.m . until between 8:00
a.m. and 9:00 a.m. BACON stated that RYAN drove to see if his friend , TASKER
PHILLIPS , was home, but said that RYAN would not have gone as far as the CARTER'S
2

EXHIBIT O

Def.Appx.000048

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE :

15033621

NARRATIVE - ACTIVITIES FOR S/A SCOTT PEASLEY THROUGH 06/22/2015 - (con't)

house. For further details regarding the interview of DANIEL BACON, please refer to the
interview report.
At approximately 7:46 p.m. SIA Schaaf and I interviewed RICK VANDONSLER
in an interview room at the Marion County Sheriff's Office. VANDONSLER knew both
JASON CARTER and MIKE MCDONALD and provided background information about
both of them . VANDONSLER stated that both JASON CARTER and MCDONALD had
tempers. VANDONSLER stated that JASON and MCDONALD had a dispute over land
that JASON was farming that belonged to MCDONALD'S mother. VANDONSLER said
that MCDONALD was in the area on Friday, June 19th and that he was hanging up posters
for an upcoming land auction.
For further details regarding the interview of
VANDONSLER, please refer to the interview report, the audio recording, or the video
recording of the interview.
On June 21st and June 22nd VANDONSLER called me on my cellular telephone
to provide further information. For details regarding those telephone calls, please refer t.o
the end of the interview report of VANDONSLER.
END OF NARRATIVE

3

EXHIBIT O

Def.Appx.000049

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CASE:

15033621

CASE AGENT:
REPORTING AGENT:
TYPED BY:
PROOFED BY:

S/A MARK LUDWICK
S/A RICK SCHAAF
S/A RICK SCHAAF
KLA/269017

NARRATIVE-ACTIVITIES FORS/A SCHAAF THROUGH 06/22/2015
On June 20, 2015 at approximately 10:00 a.m., I, Special Agent Rick Schaaf,
received a telephone call from Special Agent in Charge Troy Nelson. SAC Motsinger
requested assistance in Marion County reference a death investigation . I left my
residence a few minutes later.
At approximately 2:00 p.m ., I arrived at the Marion County Sheriffs Office in
Knoxville , Iowa. When I arrived a briefing was already underway. I learned that SHIRLEY
CARTER was found dead in her home, located at 132 Perry Street in Lacona. CARTER
suffered at least one gunshot wound to her chest. SHIRLEY CARTER was found by her
son , JASON CARTER, who called 911 . SHIRLEY'S husband was BILL CARTER who
was not home at the time.
Special Agent Scott Peasley and I left the sheriffs office to conduct a
neighborhood canvass and follow up on calls that had been made to the sheriffs office.
The following are interviews that I conducted while on the canvass. For further details
regarding the neighborhood canvass, please refer to SIA Peasley's narrative.
At approximately 4:45 p.m., we stopped at 279 Perry Street and spoke with
SHANNON STEWART. STEWART said that she heard a loud noise Friday morning, but
it sounded like farm equipment that had fallen , not a gunshot. STEWART said that she
saw a suspicious vehicle in the area on Thursday and described it as a very old Lexus with
a loud muffler and a lot of rust. STEWART said the vehicle drove toward her house from
the direction of the CARTER'S house, turned around and drove back toward the
CARTER'S house. STEWART said that she had had trouble with some neighbors whose
garage and house burned down. For further details regarding the interview of STEWART,
please refer to the interview report and the audio recording of the interview.
At approximately 6:07 p.m., S/A Peasley and I stopped at 1567 Highway S45
and spoke with DANIEL BACON. BACON stated that he and his son , RYAN BACON, had
been riding a small motorcycle Friday morning from around 6:00 a.m. until between 8:00
a.m . and 9:00 a.m. BACON stated that RYAN drove to see if his friend , TASKER
PHILLIPS , was home, but said that RYAN would not have gone as far as the CARTER'S

Exhibit#: 14-4

EXHIBIT P

Def.Appx.000050

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE:

15033621

NARRATIVE - ACTIVITIES FORS/A SCHAAF THROUGH 06/22/2015 - (con't)

house. For further details regarding the interview of DANIEL BACON , please refer to the
interview report.
At approximately 7:46 p.m., SIA Peasley and I interviewed RICK
VANDONSLER in an interview room at the Marion County Sheriff's Office .
VANDONSLER knew both JASON CARTER and MIKE MCDONALD and provided
background information about both of them . VANDONSLER stated that both JASON
CARTER and MCDONALD had tempers . VANDONSLER stated that JASON and
MCDONALD had a dispute over land that JASON was farming that belonged to
MCDONALD'S mother. VANDONSLER said that MCDONALD was in the area on Friday,
June 191h and that he was hanging up posters for an upcoming land auction. For further
details regarding the interview of VANDONSLER, please refer to the interview report, the
audio recording, or the video recording of the interview.
END OF NARRATIVE

2

EXHIBIT P

Def.Appx.000051

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
.

·'

·•
Jason Sandholdt

(

rrom:
Sent:
Subject:

Jocelyn Richards <jrichards@knoxvillehospital.org >
Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:14 PM
Jason Sandholdt
Shirley Carter Investigation - possible tip?

Importance:

High

To:

I heard you interviewed Jacob Sutter about a vehicle seen in the vicinity of the Carter place on Friday the 191h.
I may have seen the same vehicle drive past my place earlier that week and I got a very good look at the driver. I was
within seventy five or eighty feet of the car as they drove by. I live at 1273 25th Place, Pville .
I called the main Sheriff's office number yesterday and talked to a male staff member and also visited a little with my
neighbor Jake Smith about this vehicle . There was a passenger but I couldn't see that person.
The main thing I noticed was the car was an older car with white front fenders and hood that didn't match the rest of
the car.
Please let me know If yo u want to discuss what I saw.

(

Jocelyn Richards
Human Resources Generalist
Knoxville Hospital and Clinics
1002 South Lincoln Street
Knoxville, Iowa 50138
641-842-1406
iricha rds@knoxvi Ilehospital .o rg

(
EXHIBIT# i:J.. -30
CASE fS<? 0 ~;&~\

EXHIBIT Q

Def.Appx.000052

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Brian Bigaouette

All reports/recordings/pictures I've taken part in have been turned over to agent Mark
Ludwich with the D.C.I. Below is a brief synopsis of my involvement with interviews.

Shirley Carter Homicide

Lt. Brian Bigaouette interviews below is a synopsis of the various interviews
Lt. Bigaouette assisted with or observed.

1. Jason Carter - 960 115th Knoxville

Dropped son Chase off at H.S. practice/conditioning at 7:40 am.

Drove to semi (south of Pleasantville) and started to warm up.

Drove to Pleasantville Casey's for breakfast and drink

Returned to semi and took load of pre-loaded corn to Cargill

Returned semi and text s/f/g for chemical delivery.

Drove to Carter residence on Perry St. to begin spraying fields

Entered residence instead of starting tractor and found Shirley on kitchen floor.
Called sister/father/wife - no answers. Sister called back and advised him to call 911.
Dad arrived and grabbed Shirley's legs and gave her kiss

Jason noticed clock parts on floor, hole in fridge and floor

Noticed office ransacked

Checked .22 in closet and guns in basement

Persons of concern for Jason - Flesher, Rehard, McDonald

2. Shelly Carter - 960 115th Knoxville

Woke up to alarm at 6:45am. Made breakfast for Chase but Jason was going to eat
McDonalds.

Picked up Chase and friend Spencer from school but not done until 8:50 am
Dropped car off at Raceway for flat tire

Shelly, McKenna, Chase, and Spencer all walked to Spencer?s home about 3 blocks
away.

Shelly and Beth (Spencer's mom) registered boys on-line for soccer camp.

At 10:30 Shelly, McKenna, and Beth went to library while Spencer and Chase stayed
behind.

Shelly missed call from Jason and called back to discover Shirley had passed.
Shelly tells Beth she has to leave and asks her to watch McKenna. Ellis friend gives
Shelly a ride to the Carter residence.

Mentioned problems with McDonald and tells how attorney drafted letter.

3. Brenda Johnson - 1346 Hwy. 8-45 Pleasantville

Overheard Carol Worthington (Shirley's father) at Saturday ball game state Shirley was
shot twice and there were holes in fridge and floor.

Reported seeing a white truck northbound on Hwy. S-45 around 11:30 am on 6/19
Truck was followed by Sheriff?s car and pulled into her driver, head south, turn again,
and head off to the north again.

Truck described as newer white truck with no distinctive features

EXHIBIT 5,23.? 22,2
CASE 2" r: 3V2,

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Driver described as white male, 30's, short blonde hair, ball cap, slender build

4. Kathy Willoughby - 173 Pioneer

Reported being home but mowing and didn't hear or see anything.

She did advise hearing Brenda Johnson repeat comments made about Shirley and the
crime scene. See #3

5. Nancy McDonald 1851 Pierce Knoxville

Sister to Mike McDonald

Her mother (Mable) rented ground to Jason Carter for 6 years

Her mother Mable recently passed away so she and Michael are executors of the
estate.

Went to Lucas Co. FSA at 9:30 am. on 6/19 to retrieve crop papers Jason had
submitted.

Nancy and Michael believed Jason was scamming their mother because the acres he
was renting didn't match what he reported to FSA.

Stated the attorney drafted letter ending the renting of ground after this harvest.
Stated Jason was up to date on payments

6. Phil Myers - 281 Geneva Dr. Pleasantville

Couldn't tell much about Jason or Bill Carter

Explained they both keep their semi's on ground owned by him
Bill also rents the Myers grain bins

7. Brian Roff 414 N. 2nd St. Knoxville

Farmhand for Jason Carter who also works at Motor Inn

Worked with Jason when he was employed by Motor 

Met Jason at semi around 5:30 pm 6/18

Road with Jason the night before to look at and purchase a rake and bailer. Stated
Jason wrote a check for $6,000 and agreed to pick up when check cleared.

Assisted Brian with loading the semi with com from grain bins north of Pleasantville on
40th

Once loaded the tow returned semi to Heberlins around 10:30 pm and went their
separate ways.

Mentioned two affairs he knew Jason had. One with a girl at Karl Chevrolet and one at
Motor Inn.

8. Angie Gentry - 1918 61st Melcher

While tracking down a lead about a subject on 30th Ave. (by last name lndlow) that
owned a white truck I spoke with Mrs. Gentry.

She had no knowledge of her brother having a white truck but they had green and grey
truck with rust.

9. Randy Branson -

Dropped sample water bottle off at the Carter residence on 6/16 and picked up the
following morning. Game them some fish.

Spoke with Bill and Shirley on the 16th and all seemed well and normal

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Only spoke with Shirley next morning but Bill was loading grain in the semi
Randy spoke with Bill on after church on Father's Day. Bill mentioned that Shirley was
cold to the touch, had chore clothes on, chores were done, and burn barrel was lit.

10. Jeremy Mann 667 Hwy. g-76 Melcher

Was an acquaintance with Vrban and at his hours on the morning of 6/19

A search warrant was executed at Vrban's residence and several stolen items and
firearms were located.

Mann is believed to be involved in fencing the stolen items

Mann once located several stolen items at Vrbans and returned them to the rightful
owner. The items were believed to be stolen by Dustin Lancial

11. Chad DeJong - Knoxville

Has known Jason 10 to 12 years

Worked with him at Motor Inn and is farm hand for Jason now.

Spoke to Jason the night before 6/19 about driving load of corn down to Cargill
but Jason never called Chad back to confirm.

Mentioned that Shelly found out about an affair Jason was having in April of 2014 after
the girl's husband came to Jason's home and confronted him.

Chad says he never observed Jason having an affair and told Shelly that when she
asked.

Jason had purchase Brian and him a .22 last Christmas for all their help with farming.

12. Angie Vos Farm Services

Confirmed Michael McDonald and his sister Nancy believed Jason was cheating their
mother (Mable) on the crops he said he planted.

Angie explained the McDonald's issue was that the acres Jason rented from their
mother and the acres he reported to FSA didn't match. Vos said that is common
because some acres, although rented, may not be farmable.

Vos provided me with a copy of the paperwork Nancy picked up from the FSA Chariton
Office on the morning of 6/19. This was turned over to Agent Lugwick.

13. Barbara McDonald - 3815 SW. 9th #3 Des Moines

Ms. McDonald used to be married to Michael and Nancy McDonalds brother Randy.
Claimed her late husband Randy wasn't close with Michael.

She says when Randy passed in 08 she had some words with Michael but has had no
dealings with him over the past 7 years

14. Charles Parks - Hwy. 92 and 30th. Pleasantville

Reported a white truck traveling southbound several days prior to 6/19

It was a white truck and had hoses in the bed of the truck

Nothing suspicious about the truck other than Mr. Parks hadn't seen it before or since.
The truck is believed to belong to Justin Jordan and he was hauling a corn vac.

15. Kristen Maundt - 409 E. Main St. Knoville

Confirmed prior affairs of Jason Carter
Worked with him at Motor Inn

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Knew Jason had a three year affair with female for another dealership. This is believed
to be Karl Chevrolet and the female moved to Pleasantville

Jason also currently having affair with Tera Hoch. Hooked up while she was working at
Motor Inn.

Also heard Jason went on a hunting trip to New Zeeland and slept with a maid at his
resort. The maid reportedly started calling Jason after he returned.

16. Leonard Rehard - 140 Pineer Lacona

Disabled and on oxygen

Was unable to provide much detail

Spoke with Bill Carter recently while he was putting up hay. Rehard liked to stop and
watch him work.

Lives alone

His son Paul stopped in the afternoon of the murder to check on him - after work
around 3:30 pm.

17. Susan Wolfe - 24818 Nixon St. Pleasantville

Observed suspicious white truck on two occasions prior to homicide

Small sized white truck, no plates, no back bumper, lots of rust on tailgate

First observed 6/18 at approx. 2pm - slow rolling past her residence. Sped off once
they noticed Ms. Wolfe

Second observation was 6/19 around 5am - eastbound

2 scurvy looking white male occupants

18. Justin Jordan - 1750 10th Ave Lacona

Woke on 6/19 around 7 am and went outside to feed cats but didn't hear anything

Left home at 7:49 am. and seen Bill Carter leaving his residence in his truck at 7:50 am
heading eastbound.

Noticed white male with ball cap pushing stroller on Perry St. on evening of 6/17 with
two dogs following.

Didn't believe there was a child in the stroller

First seen him east of Carters walking westbound. When he returned home the male
was still walking westbound and located west of Carter's

Described male as scruffy, approx. late 30's early 40's, ball cap, jean shorts, tennis
shoes, and wearing T-shirt but couldn't remember the color.

Told of incident when a friend of his was hunting and found the straps loosened on his
deer stand. Justin mentioned it to Bill and was later told that Jason admitted to his dad
that he loosened the straps. Bill apologized on his son's behalf.

Justin also recalled two subjects in the area a few months prior while mushroom
hun?ng.

One male and one female in a gold Tahoe. Appeared to be under the influence of
meth at the time.

19. Ronald Jansen - 330 Perry St. Lacona

Jason mentioned waving to Jansen on the morning of the homicide while headed to his
parent's residence.

Jansen was outside working on a tractor at the time.

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

He recalled going outside to work on the tractor around 9:00 or 9:05 am.

He seen Jason drive past and wave in a grey truck. He didn't recognize the truck at first
but asked his brother-in-law if Jason had a truck like that.

Jansen reported seeing nothing else out of the ordinary that day.

Jansen called me the next morning to advise he believed the time Jason drove past
may have been later. Possibly 10:00 or 10:30 am.

On 7/7/15 assisted with a search warrant at the residence of Jason Carter (960 115th,
Knoxville). Once eveidence was collected by the (that was staying M.C.S.O.)
it was turned over to me to be entered into our records management system and left
secured for our evidence office (Lt. Kingrey) to place in the evidence room.

 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

(

NEIGHBORHOOD CANVASS QUESTIONNAIRE

Date:
Name:

{£ - J- 2-1s-

,_ ~b

Cv(last
i'LJo,~&
b~
narl )

Home Address:

/ 7$

.

/O:Jt)

Time:

(first name)

f )Afftr

!

l ~n V'-

f

8-f_-s;f-

Date of Birth:

(middle name)

(p C(I - £?!-- ($22V..l Ct.LL

Home Telephone:

{ 0-Uf\.ct

!nele&r

Employment {company name-type of work):

&;56IJJ ~#&

Officer:

Cl ""-

sc ~ o

I

.left

Company Address and Telephone:
Other persons living/ visiting at this address: {names and ages)
1)
2)

lctt v
(

l...J1'l/ rn;.J."},
. b1.1
r:r

3)

7)

4)

8) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Did you know of the offense?
(

5)
6)

T

Yes

0

No

ta" /lcJCJfl HJ 12 '. 3 u

If yes, how and when did you first learn of it?
Did you know the victim?

Yes

0" No D

.Doo fl.()... s" (()~Lc.-c

no+-

~ hvJ..- (\ e..{JJ1horl1

If yes, what is your relationship to the victim?

If yes, how long have you known the victim?

);:.NlU

r-

When was the last time you were at the crime scene?

n ~,~ f1&1

<!fifJtl

11(/..l-w.f..

~Q'S

th ,),.t

If yes, when was the last time you saw and/ or talked to the victim?

What knowledge do you have of the

C..i}.ile.J...

·-1L<v(-

Ci...u:.l~rboa.r J

~
/.Ml-

..p!~~

'1otl(

///o

---'~""---~~~~~~~~~~~~

~rime? "fl~vU o/di-st

Su()

c4zl

i'f

1

-

el Kt1.fAy '< d.410r1/i..J-r- l t..arel

/4urr-

Where were you at when this happened? _,MCl.'-'-'-'~u_,_,_
1>;s~-tr£
...,>.--Lll...,w.,_,_11.,,,"'""''~----------What were you doing?

rV-

o. JJ.rr<.1\£ ::r~~rQ_,,

.1-clii~.,,,,.

~./.

fYl9 w 1v~

?f ;P~

--0tc

Who were you with?
Any unusual sounds/vehicles or observations?

~

I

Do you know of any personal friends or associates of the victim/ suspect?

•

If yes, please list::

(

'EXHl~IT #

DCI-70 (updated 02/ 19 /04)

Form Reviewed 6/2008

: CASE

EXHIBIT S

7-lf .

/c;-o. ) ~~

Def.Appx.000058

1

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Can you see the crime scene from your residence?

.kb

~-=-='--~~~~~~~~~~~~-

What kind of services do you receive on a daily/weekly basis? (i.e. Newspaper, UPS, Postal Seivice,

(

garbage pickup, etc.)
lJ

fY\6-\'I

5)

2) - - -- - - - -- - - - - 6)
3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7)

4) -------------~ 8)

Who do you think could have done this?
Additional observations made at the time of interview. (i.e. injuries, nervousness, etc.)

(

(

EXHIBIT S

Def.Appx.000059

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
CASE:

INTERVIEW:

15033621

Typed By: S/A RAY FIEDLER
CASE AGENT:

S/A MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:

MICHAEL JOHN MCDONALD
1328-3Ro AVENUE SW
ALTOONA , IA 50009
MALE
WHITE
11/30/1954
482-72-0587
WASTE MANAGEMENT

SEX:
RACE:
BIRTH DATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
PHONE:
(RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:
DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

PROOFED BY: KLA/267585

LABORER

515-422-2817
06/19/2015
10:10 PM
ALTOONA POLICE DEPARTMENT
S/A RAY FIEDLER, S/A SCOT ELY

MCDONALD WAS A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE WITH THE CARTER
FAMILY.

Note: The follo wing is a summarized narrative of a recorded interview conducted
by this reporting agent. This summary is not offered as a complete transcription of the
dialogue that occurred during this interview. Please refer to the audio/video recording for
an exact account of the dialogue during the interview.
MCDONALD was asked to explain the relationship he has with the CARTER family.
MCDONALD replied there was probably going to be a lawsuit between him and the
CARTERS . MCDONALD stated he doesn't know the woman who was killed ; he doesn't
know where she lives ; and , he only met the son face-to-face once about eight years ago.
MCDONALD stated he had no idea what the CARTER family even looked like.
MCDONALD stated his mom died and the son (JASON CARTER) had been
farming her land. MCDONALD stated they caught him planting ground that was supposed
Exhibit#: 11-1

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000060

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE: 15033621
INTERVIEW - MICHAEL JOHN MCDONALD - (con't)

to be in hay and he didn't pay for doing so. MCDONALD stated an attorney tried to
mediate, but it took about three to four weeks just to get JASON to meet, and even then
he made up a story. MCDONALD related the story JASON told the attorney was that he
was trading seed for doing the hay ground. MCDONALD stated his attorney is Skinner in
Altoona.
MCDONALD stated he talked to Skinner about the case for the estate. Skinner
stated he probably had a case, but it would cost more to take the case than MCDONALD
would get out of it. MCDONALD stated they were trying to sell that farm and Skinner told
him it would probably be more beneficial to just let it go. That way chances are less that
he would trash the place when MCDONALD lets him go in the fall.
MCDONALD thought there were around 450- 500 acres of his property and the hay
land JASON planted is part of that dispute.
MCDONALD stated JASON also went to the FSA office. MCDONALD said he was
paying MCDONALD'S mom one hundred twenty-nine dollars ($129 .00) per acre, but was
turning in one hundred forty-two dollars ($142.00) per acre to the government. JASON'S
excuse for why the numbers weren 't matching was that he was taking out waterways and
bumpers . MCDONALD stated it was all very complicated , but it should be cut and dry and
not that hard .
MCDONALD stated a person can rent a farm one of two ways. They can rent the
entire farm ; or, they can rent the land and take out the waterways and bumpers. But you
can 't do both .
MCDONALD stated JASON would just take the check to MCDONALD'S mother.
MCDONALD stated he'd give her rent money for 185 acres. MCDONALD stated JASON
wasn't talking to him and he (JASON) would just take the money to MCDONALD'S
mother. MCDONALD stated his mother thought she could handle things, and he let her.
MCDONALD'S mother passed away on April 161h (2015) . MCDONALD said he also has a
sister NANCY that dealt with JASON a little bit.
MCDONALD stated he has never talked to JASON'S mom or dad and couldn't tell
you what they looked like. MCDONALD stated he's never been to their place and couldn 't
tell you where they lived. MCDONALD stated he only knows what the house looked like
because he saw it on the news.
MCDONALD stated JASON dealt almost solely with his mother (MCDONALD'S) .
MCDONALD stated he has had one phone conversation with JASON . That was this
spring when they caught him doing the hay ground. MCDONALD stated the kicker is that
JASON told him they couldn 't sell the hay. MCDONALD stated that last year hay went for

2

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000061

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE: 15033621
INTERVIEW - MICHAEL JOHN MCDONALD - (con't)

one hundred ten dollars ($110 .00) and this year it's only going for about forty dollars
($40 .00) and it probably isn't very profitable.
MCDONALD stated JASON planted part of the hay field, but left the outside of the
field in hay. MCDONALD stated he can't be sure, but it looked like he was setting up the
field for deer hunting, which it would be good for, and is how MCDONALD is marketing it
to people for selling it. MCDONALD stated he is working through Mossy Oaks and it just
got out on the Internet a couple of days ago .
MCDONALD stated he works at Metro Waste Authority and will have been there 24
years on the 241h of June. MCDONALD stated he was off all day Friday.
MCDONALD stated he got up around 5:00 AM, and left his house around 6:30 AM,
to go to a friend's house. MCDONALD stated his friend, RICK, is an auctioneer who also
lives in Knoxville, and is helping with the estate . MCDONALD stated RICK had printed up
some flyers and MCDONALD went down to his house to pick up the flyers for distribution.
MCDONALD stated he got to Knoxville around 7:00 - 7:30 AM , and went to RICK'S
house. MCDONALD stated his friend is RICK VAN DONSLER. After meeting RICK at his
house they then went to his office and got the flyers. MCDONALD stated after leaving
RICK'S office he went to Pamida to get tacks for the flyers. He then went next door to a
car wash to wash his car. MCDONALD stated he goes to that car wash because it's only
one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) to get started and you get more time than the one in
Altoona that costs two dollars and fifty cents ($2 .50) for less time. MCDONALD thought
he left RICK'S office around 8:00 - 8:30 AM.
MCDONALD stated he then went to Pleasantville and put up flyers in a bank and at
a Casey's. MCDONALD recalled that he talked to a woman at the bank. He didn't get to
talk to anyone at Casey's because they were very busy.
MCDONALD stated after Pleasantville he drove to Milo. At Milo he dropped off a
flyer at Casey's, where he spent some time talking to a very nice clerk there. He then
went to a bank where one of the guys there helped him put up the flyer. The last stop in
Milo was at the Milo Locker. MCDONALD stated that was a good lead because the lady
there talked about wanting to buy an acreage in that area.
MCDONALD stated he then went to Osceola and thought that was around 10:30 11 :00 AM . MCDONALD stated he couldn 't be sure because he wasn't wearing a watch
and wasn 't checking the clock. MCDONALD stated he stopped at about four or five
Casey's in Osceola and then went to the Western Tack Store there as well.
MCDONALD stated he then went to Lucas to a gas station and then on to
Indianola. MCDONALD stated he stopped at Hy-Vee in order to put up a flyer there. He

3

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000062

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE: 15033621
INTERVIEW - MICHAEL JOHN MCDONALD - (con't)

left the flyer with a guy at customer service and went over to eat lunch at the four dollar
and ninety-nine cent ($4.99) all you can eat salad bar. MCDONALD thought that was
around 12:00 - 1:00 PM . MCDONALD stated he then went to four or five Casey's stores,
a city/state bank (whose main office is in Norwalk), a John Deere dealer, and a place that
sells ATV'S called Van Wall's. MCDONALD stated that was a good lead as well because
the guy who he talked to there was also looking for some property in that area.
MCDONALD then drove to Des Moines and stopped at the Kum and Go on the
Southside. MCDONALD said the people there weren 't quite as friendly. He then drove to
an indoor archery range just south of the casino. MCDONALD stated he took about ten
flyers in there and the lady there was very friendly.
MCDONALD stated by then he was getting tired so he drove home. Once he got
home he mowed the lawn . After mowing he took a shower, and that was when he heard
from RICK that MRS. CARTER had been murdered .
MCDONALD then again left the house and drove to Colfax. He taped a flyer to the
door of an auction house that wasn 't open and then dropped off a flyer at a saddle shop .
He then drove home again and had supper. MCDONALD stated he watched a little
te levision and went to bed around 8:00 PM . MCDONALD stated he was asleep when he
got the call to come in for the interview.
I would like to note that MCDONALD stated he was driving a 1987 Chevrolet
Caprice that had a dark blue top and a light blue body.
MCDONALD stated he lives in Altoona by himself. MCDONALD stated he doesn't
own any guns, but he does have a pellet gun so that he can shoot rabbits in his yard.
MCDONALD stated he won a shotgun or rifle once at a Pheasant's Forever meeting, but
sold that at an auction .
MCDONALD stated that he made several calls wh ile he was driving around. He
called RICK a couple of times to talk to him about the estate. He also tried to call his sister
a couple of times, but she wasn 't answering .
At th is time MCDONALD allowed S/A ELY to look at his phone. MCDONALD
stated his phone service is through Consumer Cellular and he only has an old flip phone.
MCDONALD stated he can get text messages, but he gets charged ten cents ($.10) for
each incom ing message. So he gets the message and he calls back whoever sent him
that message. MCDONALD stated he doesn't know if he can send messages because
he's never tried .
I would like to note that ELY looked at his phone and noticed the last call to RICK
was at 1:08 PM , and the last 4 dig its of RICK'S phone were 2222 . ELY could not find any

4

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000063

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE: 15033621
INTERVIEW - MICHAEL JOHN MCDONALD - (con't)

other call history for that number. ELY also found a number (267-8000) that was dialed at
11 :08 AM , on the 181h, and that person was RYAN , MCDONALD'S stockbroker.
MCDONALD stated he did work on Thursday, and has to work at 6:00 AM, on
Saturday (6/20) at Waste Management. MCDONALD stated he is usually off on Fridays,
but generally works every Saturday. MCDONALD stated he has been around long
enough that he just puts in for every Friday off. MCDONALD also stated he works eight
hours a day.
MCDONALD stated he opens up a bit early on Saturdays , around 7:00 AM .
MCDONALD said because he is the senior guy he has to be there early.
MCDONALD stated he only heard about the CARTERS on the news after RICK
had called him. MCDONALD stated RICK called him and asked him about the name;
then , he heard about it on the news; then, he tried to call NANCY. She was putting up
flyers all day and hadn't heard about the news either.
MCDONALD again stated he's never been to the house and only knows what it
looks like from the news. He thought that the house was in the Pleasantville area .
MCDONALD stated his mom lived south of Knoxville , about one half mile east of a
small town called Pershing .
MCDONALD then again tried to explain the payment situation between his mom
and JASON CARTER. MCDONALD stated JASON has been paying about two hundred
dollars ($200 .00) an acre on one farm and about one hundred twenty-five dollars
($125.00) an acre on another. However, JASON wasn 't paying on about 35 acres, which
after he talked to the attorney, turned into 32 acres. MCDONALD stated the attorney, who
is in Knoxville, has that paperwork. MCDONALD could not remember who that attorney
was, but that Skinner has been in contact with him .
MCDONALD stated he has not talked to JASON about ra1s1ng the cash rent
because they were going to sell the property and just wanted him out. MCDONALD stated
he thought it was interesting that JASON 'S wife called the attorney in Knoxville recently
and told him that they weren't going to farm the property next year and were going to
leave.

END OF INTERVIEW at 11 :05 PM

5

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000064

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATIVE COMMUNIQUE
POLYGRAPH REPORT
TITLE PAGE

TYPE:
LOCATION:

POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION - HOMICIDE
LACONA, IOWA

DATE OF INCIDENT:
CASE AGENT:
ASSISTING AGENT:
REQUESTING AGENCY:
ASSISTING AGENCY:

CASE#:

15037107

~

OPEN
ADDEDINFO
ASOF

D

06/24/2015
SIA DAVE OVERTON
S/A MARK LUDWICK

VICTIM(S):
NAME:
ADDRESS:
SEX:
RACE:
DOB:
SS#:
HGT:
WGT:
EYES:
PHONE:

(RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
DCI:
FBI:

0

See Next Page for Add'I Victims

0

See Next Page for Add'I Subjects

SUBJECT($):
NAME:
ADDRESS:

MICHAEL MCDONALD
1328 3RD SW
ALTOONA, IOWA
MALE
WHITE
11/30/1954
482-72-0587

SEX:
RACE:
DOB:
SS#:
HGT:
WGT:
EYES:
PHONE:

(RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
DCI:
FBI:
DISTRIBUTION:
M

HD

PU

0

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

FILE-(ORIGINAL)
SAC MICHAEL MOTSINGER - REVIEWED 09/09/2015
SIA MARK LUDWICK -1
S/A DAVE OVERTON- E-MAIL

"HI BIT # I l-&
C SE

6.

EXHIBIT T

Transcribed By/Date: HAWN/265337 09/17/2015

Def.Appx.000065

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE #:

15037107

INVESTIGATIVE COMMUNIQUE (con't)
SYNOPSIS:
On 06/24/2015 , I, Special Agent Dave Overton, conducted a polygraph
examination on MICHAEL MCDONALD. MCDONALD voluntarily came to Post 1 in Des
Moines, Iowa, for this examination .
The issue under consideration was whether or not MCDONALD had shot
SHIRLEY CARTER. The facts concerning this case were provided to me by S/A Mark
Ludwick. The polygraph was audio and video recorded .
Before the pre-test interview, MCDONALD was advised of his Miranda Rights
and willingly submitted to the polygraph examination. MCDONALD was asked if there was
any reason he could not take the polygraph examination on this date. MCDONALD could
not think of any physical or medical concerns that would keep him from taking the
examination . After a discussion of MCDONALD'S medical history, I identified no medical
concerns for th is examination .
PRE-TEST INTERVIEW
MCDONALD denied that he had shot SHIRLEY CARTER during the pre-test
interview.
EXAMINATION
The relevant questions were formulated and reviewed with MCDONALD. The
relevant questions and MCDONALD'S responses were as follows :
Question R1

Did you shoot SHIRLEY CARTER?

Answer

No

Question R2

Did you shoot SHIRLEY CARTER June 19, 2015?

Answer

No

Question R3

Did you shoot SHIRLEY CARTER at her residence?

Answer

No

2
EXHIBIT
T

Def.Appx.000066

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE #:

15037107

INVESTIGATIVE COMMUNIQUE (con't)
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION
Based on the scoring technique utilized to evaluate this polygraph
examination , the results indicated that MCDONALD was INCONCLUSIVE. The test used
was the Directed Lie Test. The scoring system used was the Empirical Scoring System
(ESS) .
POST-TEST INTERVIEW
For full details of interview please see the audio and video recording of the
entire polygraph .
The following exhibits are contained in this communique:
Exhibit 1

Miranda Form (Retained by SIA Ludwick)

Exhibit 2

Copy of audio (Retained S/A Ludwick)

EXHIBIT T

Def.Appx.000067

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTERVIEW:

CASE: 15033621
TYPED BY: S/A ROWE
PROOFED BY: MICHELE B./263817

CASE AGENT:

SIA MARK LUDWICK

NAME:
ADDRESS:

JOHN FRANKLIN CLYMER
5866 WEST 60 TH STREET SOUTH
COLFAX, IOWA 50054
MALE
WHITE
02-09-1959
NOT OBTAINED
METRO WASTE AUTHORITY

SEX:
RACE:
BIRTH DATE:
SOC SEC#:
EMPLOYMENT:
OCCUPATION:
PHONE: (RES)
(BUS)
(CELL)
E-MAIL:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
INTERVIEWED BY:

TRUCK DRIVER
NONE
515-967 -2076
515-669-3258

DICTATED BY:
PURPOSE:

N/A
CLYMER IS A CO-WORKER OF MICHAEL MCDONALD AND SPOKE
WITH MCDONALD ABOUT MCDONALD HIRING A HIT MAN
REFERENCE A LAND DISPUTE HE WAS HAVING.

06-22-2015
1:05 P.M .
METRO WASTE AUTHORITY
S/A MICHAEL ROWE, ISP SGT. ELMER PEARSON

Note: The following is a summarized narrative of a recorded interview
conducted by this reporting agent. This summary is not offered as a complete
transcription of the dialogue that occurred during this interview. Please refer to the
audio/video recording for an exact account of the dialogue during the interview.
On the date and time above, I, Special Agent Michael Rowe, and Iowa State
Patrol Sgt. Elmer Pearson spoke with JOHN CLYMER at his place of business . CLYMER
said that he has worked at Metro Waste with MIKE MCDONALD for several years but is
not a close co-worker of him . CLYMER said that he drives a truck and MCDONALD is a
utility worker at the Metro Waste complex. CLYMER said that approximately three weeks
ago he pulled his truck up next to MCDONALD'S truck and they had a conversation .
Exhibit#: 13-2
DCI Case 15033621

EXHIBIT U

Def.Appx.000068

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CASE: 15033621
INTERVIEW - JOHN FRANKLIN CLYMER - (con't)

CLYMER explained that MCDONALD was complaining about a land dispute near where
he lived in Marion County. MCDONALD said to CLYMER that, "I should just hire a hit
man." CLYMER thought MCDONALD was referring to the opposing party in this land
dispute and hiring the hit man to kill them . CLYMER said MCDONALD did not name the
person he was in a dispute with but mentioned the son of the land owners. CLYMER
recalled this dispute had something to do with a cash rent deal. CLYMER said that this
was the only conversation he has ever had with MCDONALD about a land dispute. I
asked CLYMER if MCDONALD made the comment that he should hire a hit man and "no
one would ever find out. " CLYMER denied that MCDONALD said that no one would ever
find out.
CLYMER said that it was common for MCDONALD to take Fridays off due to
his topped out vacation bank. CLYMER said that MCDONALD is typically off every Friday
in the summer.
On Tuesday, June 23 , 2015, I received a call from CLYMER (not recorded).
CLYMER claimed that he was not entirely truthful about MCDONALD'S comments
reference the hit man. CLYMER said that he had trouble sleeping the previous night and
said he remembered his father always told him not to lie. CLYMER then said that
MCDONALD did make the comment that if he hired a hit man no one would ever find out.
CLYMER said that he thought about MCDONALD and said that if CLYMER was in
MCDONALD'S position , MCDONALD would not stick up for him so why should he.
END OF SUMMARY

2

EXHIBIT U

Def.Appx.000069

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

EXHIBIT V
(MIKE MCDONALD AUDIO
RECORDING OF POLYGRAPH)
Please refer to the audio recording provided
in electronic format.

EXHIBIT V

Def.Appx.000070

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

1
1
2
3
4

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
BILLY DEAN CARTER,
BILL G. CARTER and ESTATE
OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER by
and through
BILL G. CARTER, Executor,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

vs.

7

JASON G. CARTER,

8

Defendant.
_________________________

9
10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. LACV095809
TRANSCRIPT OF
JURY TRIAL
(VOLUME V of IX)

The above-entitled matter came on before
the Honorable Martha L. Mertz, Judge of the Fifth
Judicial District of Iowa, commencing at
9:40 a.m., December 11th, 2017, at the
Marion County Courthouse, Knoxville, Iowa.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

EXHIBIT W

Def.Appx.000071

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

46
1

A.

That's when I checked her carotid artery.

2

Q.

And you stated that she was stiff; correct?

3

A.

It says right here I did (indicating).

4

Q.

Okay.

5

correct, that she was stiff?

6

A.

No, I don't.

7

Q.

Oh, so what you told the DCI on the day of

8

Shirley's death that she was stiff was untrue?

9

A.

No.

And you believe that to this day,

There is a difference between being

10

stiff and being alive.

11

kissed her forehead and her face.

12

go of her head, her head went on its own back to

13

the floor.

14

She was stiff when I
But when I let

Now, if she was really stiff and in rigor

15

mortis, her head wouldn't have dropped to the

16

floor.

17

Q.

18

day about her dropping to the floor or not being

19

stiff in other parts of her body, did you?

20

A.

No, I did not.

21

Q.

You told the DCI that she was stiff.

22

you didn't qualify it in any other way, did you?

23

A.

I did not.

24

Q.

What I'd like to do now is to switch gears

25

and talk to you --

But you didn't say anything to DCI on that

EXHIBIT W

And

Def.Appx.000072

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

EXHIBIT X
(AUDIO RECORDING FROM JUNE 22,
2015)
Please refer to the audio recording provided
in electronic format.

EXHIBIT X

Def.Appx.000073

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

EXHIBIT Y
(AUDIO RECORDING FROM JUNE 22,
2015)
Please refer to the audio recording provided
in electronic format.

EXHIBIT Y

Def.Appx.000074

 2

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
1

A P P E A R A N C E S

2

4

Plaintiffs by: PHILLIP MYERS
Attorney at Law
201 West Monroe Street
P.O. Box C
Pleasantville, Iowa 50225

5

Defendant by:

1

08:56:54

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

1

3

The Estate of Shirley D.
Carter, by and through
Bill G. Carter, Executor,
Bill G. Carter,
Individually , and
Billy D. Carter,

)
)
)
)
)LAW NO. LACV095809
)
)DEPOSITION OF
Plaintiffs ,
)
)CURTIS RAY SEDDON
)
vs.
)
JASON CARTER,
)
)
Defendant .
)
__________________________ )

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

6
7

THE DEPOSITION OF CURTIS RAY

8

11

SEDDON, taken before Gale Sweeney

12

Christensen , Certified Shorthand Reporter ,

13

Registered Professional Reporter , and Notary

14

Public of the State of Iowa, commencing at

15

8:58 a.m., January 25, 2017, at 201 West

16

Monroe Street , Pleasantville , Iowa.

19
20
21
22
23
Reported by:

Jason Carter
Bill Gene Carter

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

18

25

Also present:

9

17

24

TERRY GIBSON
Attorney at Law
Suite B
2501 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50312

Gale Sweeney Christensen ,
CSR, RPR

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
3

1

4

1

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

CURTIS RAY SEDDON,

2

Examination by

Page

2

called as a witness, having been first duly

3

Mr. Gibson

4, 85

3

sworn, testified as follows:

4

Mr. Myers

74

4

DIRECT EXAMINATION

5

08:58:15

5

BY MR. GIBSON:

6

08:58:15

6

Q. Could you state your name for the

7

08:58:17

7

record.

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

08:58:17

8

A. Curtis Ray Seddon.
Q. Mr. Seddon, how old are you?

8
Exhibits

Referred to on page

08:58:20

9

10

9

1

5

08:58:23

10

A. Forty-three.

11

2

6, 39, 42, 43, 51, 87

08:58:24

11

Q. My name is Terry Gibson, and I represent

12

3

82, 85

08:58:28

12

Jason Carter in a lawsuit that's been brought

13

08:58:31

13

against him by his father and brother

14

08:58:33

14

concerning the death of Shirley Carter.

15

08:58:37

15

you aware of that lawsuit?

16

08:58:38

16

A. Yes.

17

08:58:38

17

Q. Can I ask you how you're aware of that

18

08:58:41

18

lawsuit?

19

08:58:42

19

A. Mainly by contact with investigators is

20

08:58:46

20

how I became aware of it.

21

08:58:50

21

Q. I will ask you more about that in a

22

08:58:53

22

minute.

23

08:58:55

23

A. Yes.

24

08:58:56

24

Q. So just as a reminder, I will be asking

25

08:58:59

25

you questions today.

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
1 of 32 sheets

EXHIBIT Z

Sweeney Court Reporting

Are

Have you ever been deposed before?

We do have a court

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

Def.Appx.000075
Page 1 to 4 of 90

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM33MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

34

09:39:11

1

and I really kind of lost contact and might

09:40:38

1

after?

09:39:15

2

see each other, you know, somewhat in passing

09:40:39

2

A. More than a month, but I don't -- I

09:39:18

3

and say a couple words and such, but as far

09:40:42

3

don't recall the actual date of that.

09:39:23

4

as details in his life, I think the last time

09:40:44

4

Q. Was it still the summer of 2015, or was

09:39:31

5

really I recall is when -- I believe is when

09:40:47

5

this now later than that even?

09:39:35

6

I covered a fire at Jason's wife's home.

09:40:49

6

A. I don't remember exactly.

09:39:43

7

I think I had some interaction maybe with

09:40:52

7

Q. You don't remember if it was the fall or

09:39:46

8

Jason at that point in time, but as far as

09:40:59

8

winter or --

09:39:49

9

knowledge of affairs or anything, no.

09:41:00

9

A. I really don't.

09:39:53

10

Q. And my question wasn't necessarily if

09:41:01

10

Q. And Mr. Ludwig was the person that

09:39:56

11

Jason had talked to you about that.

09:41:09

11

called you?

09:39:58

12

really more open-ended as do you have any

09:41:09

12

A. Yes.

09:40:01

13

knowledge from any other source that Jason

09:41:11

13

Q. And I know we started to talk about who

09:40:03

14

might be having affairs prior to June 19th,

09:41:14

14

else was present, and you made the comment

And

It was

09:40:07

15

2015.

09:41:16

15

there were other law enforcement people

09:40:07

16

A. No.

09:41:19

16

around.

09:40:08

17

Q. So we've talked about your conversations

09:41:22

17

day about Shirley Carter's death, who was

09:40:14

18

with Mr. Thorpe.

09:41:26

18

present in the room or place where you were

09:40:19

19

me about a second interview with Mr. Ludwig,

09:41:28

19

having those discussions?

09:40:22

20

and I would like to go back to that.

09:41:30

20

A. John Thorpe and I were in there.

09:40:24

21

understanding is you met with Mr. Ludwig and

09:41:40

21

said, we talked a little bit, and then my

09:40:27

22

others in law enforcement for a second time?

09:41:44

22

interview was then with Special Agent Ludwig

09:40:30

23

A. Yes.

09:41:50

23

then.

09:40:31

24

Q. And was that within a month from your

09:41:56

24

with other law enforcement on that topic at

09:40:36

25

first meeting with him or more than a month

09:42:01

25

that time.

You were starting to tell
So my

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

When you had your discussions that

Like I

I really didn't, as I recall, interact

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

35

36

09:42:01

1

Q. So the interview, was that one-on-one,

09:43:50

1

Q. What statements did you discuss with

09:42:04

2

Mr. Ludwig and you then?

09:43:52

2

Mr. Ludwig that Bill Carter made?

09:42:06

3

A. Yes.

09:43:56

3

A. They were mostly of what Bill was saying

09:42:06

4

Q. Were you in a room by yourselves?

09:44:01

4

at the time of kind of what Bill thought.

09:42:09

5

A. Yes.

09:44:13

5

remember statements that I relayed that Bill

09:42:09

6

Q. All right.

09:44:17

6

was saying that -- why did they have to shoot

09:42:12

7

discussed during this interview?

09:44:23

7

her.

09:42:14

8

A. Just my observations at the scene.

09:44:28

8

that's what they wanted.

09:42:23

9

Q. Anything specific about that that he

09:44:31

9

surprised them.

09:42:25

10

asked you about?

09:44:38

10

Q. So Bill Carter was also referencing that

09:42:27

11

A. The position of the body is what I

09:44:44

11

Shirley had been shot?

What do you recall was

I

She would have given them money if
She must have

09:42:37

12

recall, statements made.

09:44:46

12

A. In a way, yes.

09:42:39

13

Q. Statements made by whom?

09:44:48

13

Q. Any other statements made by Bill Carter

09:42:46

14

A. Well, it was in relation to both Bill

09:44:56

14

that you recall that you shared with

09:42:54

15

and Jason, as I recall.

09:44:58

15

Mr. Ludwig?

09:43:04

16

Q. And what did you tell Mr. Ludwig about

09:44:59

16

A. It's hard to remember specifically due

09:43:08

17

any statements that were made by Jason?

09:45:06

17

to the fact I've been interviewed several

09:43:11

18

A. That Jason had appeared to have

09:45:09

18

times and several things have come up.

09:43:17

19

knowledge that she had been shot, I thought,

09:45:12

19

Q. Anything else you recall about this

09:43:26

20

somewhat quickly, a statement that she's been

09:45:15

20

interview by Mr. Ludwig?

09:43:30

21

shot, there were two holes.

09:45:18

21

A. No.

09:43:39

22

Q. Any other statements from Jason that you

09:45:18

22

Q. Were you interviewed by law enforcement

09:43:41

23

discussed with Mr. Ludwig during this

09:45:21

23

after this second interview by Mr. Ludwig?

09:43:44

24

meeting?

09:45:25

24

A. No.

09:43:45

25

A. No.

09:45:26

25

Q. So your last interview with law

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
9 of 32 sheets

EXHIBIT Z

Sweeney Court Reporting

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

Def.Appx.000076
Page 33 to 36 of 90

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM53MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

54

10:08:40

1

A. Yeah, that's not true.

10:09:48

1

closely.

10:08:44

2

Q. But you feel fairly comfortable about

10:09:49

2

Q. Okay.

10:08:48

3

your arrival time and the EMT arrival time

10:09:49

3

A. Because I didn't figure that was my --

10:08:53

4

that's been corrected?

10:09:52

4

Q. Do you think that someone that had been

10:08:54

5

A. I would say that's pretty close.

10:09:55

5

there for fifteen or twenty minutes might

10:08:57

6

Q. So is it fair for me to think that your

10:09:58

6

have discerned she had been shot?

10:09:00

7

actual time in the house was probably a

10:10:00

7

A. Maybe.

10:09:01

8

minute or less if the span from when you

10:10:01

8

Q. Would they've -- I mean, obviously they

10:09:05

9

arrived to when EMT arrives is just over two

10:10:05

9

would have more time if they were assessing

10:09:09

10

minutes?

10:10:08

10

Shirley and the need for aid and what had

10:09:10

11

A. It could be approximately.

10:10:12

11

happened.

10:09:12

12

Q. And while you were in the house, you

10:10:13

12

that than you had had in your minute or

10:09:15

13

assessed Shirley.

10:10:17

13

thirty seconds or whatever?

10:09:18

14

made a quick assessment that there were

10:10:18

14

A. Possibly, yes.

You also looked around and

They would have more time to do

10:09:20

15

things that had been disrupted in the house?

10:10:20

15

Q. What I am trying to get at is you seemed

10:09:23

16

A. Yes.

10:10:24

16

troubled by the fact that Jason made these

10:09:23

17

Q. So your actual time examining Shirley

10:10:27

17

comments about his mother being shot because

10:09:27

18

was how long?

10:10:29

18

you weren't able to discern that, but I am

10:09:29

19

A. It wasn't very long.

10:10:32

19

trying to draw a distinction between your

10:09:32

20

Q. I appreciate that, but I need to know

10:10:34

20

examination of thirty seconds and the fact

10:09:34

21

something more than that.

10:10:37

21

Jason may have been there for as much as

10:09:36

22

A. Yes.

10:10:39

22

twenty-two minutes prior to when you arrived.

10:09:37

23

Q. So on thirty seconds you weren't able to

10:10:42

23

A. Okay.

10:09:41

24

discern she'd been shot?

10:10:42

24

Q. Could that be the basis for why he knew

10:09:42

25

A. No.

10:10:45

25

she was shot?

Thirty seconds?

I didn't examine her body that

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

55
10:10:46

1

A. Yeah.

10:10:49

2

10:10:51

3

10:10:53

56
10:11:43

1

in time due to the fact that I wasn't

he did, so I mean, he would be able to --

10:11:45

2

responding maybe in that role, which is, I

Q. Well, I think I read somewhere in your

10:11:48

3

guess, confusing to everybody, but that's the

4

statement that you thought it was -- that he

10:11:52

4

way it is.

10:10:56

5

seemed to have too much knowledge and you

10:11:53

5

Q. And I appreciate that, but I am trying

10:10:58

6

thought maybe that was because he had been

10:11:54

6

to dive in to your opinion that, well, maybe

10:11:00

7

the one that shot her; is that a fair

10:11:58

7

Jason knew all this because he's the one that

10:11:03

8

statement?

10:12:01

8

shot his mother.

10:11:03

9

A. I only made that statement because of

10:12:04

9

won't agree with me that maybe he knew that

10:11:13

10

the, you know, two holes.

10:12:06

10

because he had spent more time with his

10:11:15

11

Q. Right.

10:12:08

11

mother and his mother's body than you did.

10:11:15

12

A. You know, it depends on what he did.

10:12:11

12

A. I think it's possible.

10:11:18

13

That's what comes to my mind, and that's why

10:12:12

13

Q. Do you think that if you would have

10:11:20

14

I made that statement.

10:12:14

14

examined Shirley's body for five or

10:11:21

15

Q. Yeah.

10:12:17

15

ten minutes you would have been able to

10:11:24

16

knowledge than you did when you looked at the

10:12:19

16

discern she'd been shot?

10:11:26

17

body?

10:12:21

17

A. It depends on what I would do.

10:11:27

18

A. Well, certainly.

10:12:25

18

Q. Okay.

10:11:28

19

Q. Did you factor in to your thoughts he

10:12:25

19

A. It depends on -- you know, I don't even

10:11:30

20

had more time to examine the body than you

10:12:29

20

know the condition of the body because I

I mean, I don't really know what

And you thought he had more

I'm trying to see if you

10:11:33

21

did?

10:12:34

21

didn't look at it.

10:11:33

22

A. Not when I made that statement.

10:12:37

22

do.

10:11:36

23

Q. Okay.

10:12:39

23

Q. Well, that's fair.

10:11:36

24

A. I don't think, you know, as -- it wasn't

10:12:41

24

Shirley's body?

10:11:41

25

really my role to question him at that point

10:12:42

25

A. No.

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
Page 53 to 56 of 90

EXHIBIT Z

Sweeney Court Reporting

So it depends on what you

And I don't know what he did, so -Did you touch

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

Def.Appx.00007714 of 32 sheets

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM81MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

82

10:42:28

1

of the kitchen, what you would normally find

10:43:40

1

10:42:31

2

in a kitchen?

10:43:41

2

10:42:32

3

A. No, out of place.

10:43:44

3

MR. MYERS:

10:42:35

4

Q. Did there ever to you look like there

10:43:46

4

(Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was

10:42:38

5

was a struggle of any sort?

10:43:46

5

marked for identification by the

10:42:40

6

A. No.

10:43:47

6

10:42:41

7

Q. After you turned at that point and made

10:43:47

7

BY MR. MYERS:

10:42:44

8

those observations, what was your next --

10:44:11

8

Q. I want to clarify now who was the first

10:42:49

9

what you recall?

10:44:26

9

person that told you about holes or shots.

10:42:51

10

A. What I recall doing next is I heard the

10:44:30

10

A. Jason.

10:43:02

11

deputy's car coming down the road.

Bill was

10:44:31

11

Q. And when was that?

10:43:06

12

kind of at her feet here (indicating), and I

10:44:33

12

A. It was -- as I recall, it was more

10:43:08

13

told him that we need to get out of the

10:44:42

13

towards when we were moving kind of up onto

10:43:11

14

kitchen.

10:44:45

14

the deck, is when that started coming out.

10:43:11

15

Q. And to use Mr. Gibson's terminology,

10:44:47

15

Q. So Jason was down by the garage area, in

10:43:17

16

that all took about thirty seconds?

10:44:50

16

front of the garage area?

10:43:19

17

A. I believe we were talking about the

10:44:51

17

A. Jason and Bill were down by the garage

10:43:23

18

assessment of the body was around thirty

10:44:54

18

area, kind of in between the house and there.

10:43:26

19

seconds.

10:44:57

19

They both kind of come out and approached me.

10:43:26

20

Q. How long do you think it took you to be

10:45:00

20

And as I walked towards there, we all kind of

10:43:28

21

in and out of that kitchen and make those

10:45:04

21

migrated towards that deck area.

10:43:31

22

observations?

10:45:09

22

statements were being made as we moved

10:43:31

23

A. I had thought one to two minutes.

10:45:12

23

towards the deck and the door.

10:43:34

24

Q. Okay.

10:45:17

24

Q. What was the first thing you remember

10:43:38

25

make some notes.

10:45:19

25

Jason Carter saying to you?

What did you do next?

I will take this back so I can
Excuse me.

MR. GIBSON:

Can we have that

marked?
Sure, would love to.

reporter.)

And those

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
83

84

10:45:21

1

A. What I had stated earlier, that she'd

10:46:53

1

an EMT to give a time of death?

10:45:27

2

been shot, there is two holes.

10:46:58

2

A. I don't know that specifically, whether

10:45:30

3

Q. Did Bill say anything at that time?

10:47:06

3

that's the EMT, medical examiner -- or ME's

10:45:33

4

A. I don't remember specifically.

10:47:11

4

office.

10:45:42

5

Q. And you immediately went up the steps

10:47:19

5

taxed with that duty of documenting actual

10:45:49

6

and into the kitchen area at that time?

10:47:23

6

time of death.

10:45:52

7

A. Yes.

10:47:25

7

Q. When you saw the blood on the floor

10:45:53

8

Q. And Bill was the one that went with you,

10:47:28

8

around Shirley, did it appear fresh?

10:45:56

9

but Jason stayed outside?

10:47:33

9

A. Yes.

10:45:58

10

A. Yes.

10:47:38

10

Q. And how is it that dispatch -- and this

10:45:59

11

Q. And when you were in the kitchen, then

10:48:03

11

is the dispatch summary.

10:46:01

12

Bill said something to you about there

10:48:07

12

arrival times are determined?

10:46:04

13

being -- her being shot, or were there holes?

10:48:10

13

A. Well, that might be a question for them

10:46:06

14

A. He had pointed out the hole.

10:48:15

14

more better than me.

10:46:10

15

there -- see, there is a hole is what I

10:48:20

15

dangerous for me, but I would assume that it

10:46:14

16

remember.

10:48:23

16

has to do with my radioing that I'm on scene.

10:46:18

17

fridge.

10:48:29

17

Q. So you called dispatch?

10:46:18

18

Q. Did Bill explain to you how he came to

10:48:30

18

A. Yes, I called them, told them that I was

10:46:22

19

know that that hole was there, whether he saw

10:48:34

19

on scene.

10:46:24

20

it when he went in, or did Jason tell him

10:48:35

20

Q. So that's the time that they log it.

See,

See, there is a hole in the

I don't know who would be actually

It wasn't dried.
How is it that

Assuming is a little

Is

10:46:27

21

that, do you know?

10:48:38

21

there ever a time where those times are put

10:46:28

22

A. I don't remember that.

10:48:40

22

on the report after the fact?

10:46:32

23

Q. You're not an EMT; correct?

10:48:42

23

A. On their report?

10:46:44

24

A. That's correct.

10:48:46

24

Q. Yes.

10:46:45

25

Q. Do you know, is it one of the duties of

10:48:47

25

A. I don't know.

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309
21 of 32 sheets

EXHIBIT Z

Sweeney Court Reporting

I hate to answer for what

SWEENEY COURT REPORTING (515) 244-6373
320 Insurance Exchange Bldg., Des Moines, IA 50309

Def.Appx.000078
Page 81 to 84 of 90

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

EXHIBIT AA
(CURT SEDDON AUDIO JUNE 19, 2015)
Please refer to the audio recording provided
in electronic format.

EXHIBIT AA

Def.Appx.000079

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT BB

Def.Appx.000080

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT BB

Def.Appx.000081

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT BB

Def.Appx.000082

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________
THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D.
CARTER, By and Through BILL G.
CARTER, EXECUTOR; BILL G.
CARTER, Individually, and BILLY D.
CARTER,

)
Case No. LACV095809
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
IOWA DIVISION OF CRIMINAL
)
INVESTIGATION’S MOTION
vs.
)
TO QUASH SUBPOENA
)
JASON CARTER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation,1 and in support of its
Motion to Quash Subpoena states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On or about July 5, 2016, the Subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit “A” was
presented to the Iowa Department of Public Safety offices in Des Moines. The Iowa
Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) is a divisional unit with the Department of
Public Safety. The Subpoena at issue purports to require the DCI to produce 26
individually listed items. Presumably, the listed items are materials the Plaintiffs believe
are contained with the DCI’s investigative materials. What must be noted from the outset
is the fact that the materials requested are part of an active DCI homicide investigation.

1

The Subpoena actually names the “Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation.” There
is no such state agency.

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000083

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

THE MATERIALS REQUESTED ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE
1.

Law enforcement investigative materials are confidential under Iowa law,

and such confidentiality extends to attempts by civil litigants to obtain this information.
State ex rel. Shanahan, 356 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1984). As the Iowa Supreme Court noted
in the afore-cited case, “both statutes label as confidential information about criminal
activity or crimes which DCI agents receive from other persons and record as part of their
files.” Id. at 528. Further yet, the Court in Shanahan stated, “clearly the public has the
strongest interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police files when those files
concern an ongoing criminal investigation.” Id. at 529. Requiring the Release of a law
enforcement investigative file relating to a murder to civil litigants, including persons
who may well be the subject of the investigation, not only defies common sense but finds
no support in the law.
2.

Iowa law is also in accordance with federal law with respect to obtaining

such law enforcement investigative materials. In the federal system there is a common
law privilege protecting law enforcement investigative materials from disclosure and, as
here, “The purpose of the privilege is to prevent disclosure of law enforcement
techniques and procedures, to preserve the confidentiality of sources, to protect witnesses
and law enforcement personnel, to safeguard the privacy of individuals involved in an
investigation, and to otherwise prevent interference in an investigation.” Raz v. Mueller,

2

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000084

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

389 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1062 (W.D. Ark. 2005), citing Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216
F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ind. 2003).
CONCLUSION
Based upon the arguments and authorities cited herein, it is respectfully requested
that this Court enter an order quashing the Subpoena issued to the DCI in its entirety.
THOMAS J. MILLER
IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Jeffrey C. Peterzalek
JEFFREY C. PETERZALEK
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
Hoover Building, 2nd Floor
1305 E. Walnut
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Ph: (515) 281-4213
Fax: (515) 281-4209
E-mail: Jeffrey.Peterzalek@iowa.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR IOWA DIVISION OF
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
All Parties Served Electronically

3

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000085

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000086

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000087

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016 MAY
JUL 11
30 10:04
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

EXHIBIT CC

Def.Appx.000088

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016MAY
AUG30
2412:08
8:08 AM
PMMARION
MARION--CLERK
CLERKOF
OFDISTRICT
DISTRICTCOURT
COURT

EXHIBIT DD

Def.Appx.000089

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2016MAY
AUG30
2412:08
8:08 AM
PMMARION
MARION--CLERK
CLERKOF
OFDISTRICT
DISTRICTCOURT
COURT

EXHIBIT DD

Def.Appx.000090

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE lOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

)

THEESTATEOFSHIRLEYD.
CARTER, BY AND THROUGH BILL G.
CARTER, EXECUTOR, BILL G.
CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
BILLY D. CARTER

)
)
)
)
)

JASON CARTER

))

"·

No. LAC"095809

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE BOOKS,
DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY
STORED INFORMATION, OR
TANGIBLE THINGS OR TO PERMIT
INSPECTION OF PREMISES

)

To:

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation
c/o Jeffrey Peterzalek
Assistant Attorney General
Hoover Building, Second Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place specified below the
X
following books, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, and permit
their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:
See Exhibit A attached.
Place: The Weinhardt Law Firm, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450, Des Moines, lA
50322
Date: April26, 2017

Time: 9:00a.m.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: paper or CD
Date: April19, 2017

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing Billy Dean Carter,
Bill G. Carter and Estate of Shirley D. Carter by and through Bill G. Carter, Executor, who
issues or requests this subpoena:
Mark E. Weinhardt
The Weinhardt Law Firm, 2600 Grand Ave. Suite 450, Des Moines, IA 50322
Email: mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 244-3100

{02050486.DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000091

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PROOF OF SERVICE

This subpoena for (name of individual and title,

if any)

was received by me on (date) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

D

I personally served the subpoena on the individual at (place)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on (date) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; or

D

I left the subpoena at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with (name)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, a person residing therein who is at least 18 years

old; or

D

I served the subpoena on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of
organization)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on (date) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; or

----~-~-~-----~-~--

D
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;or
D

Other (specify):
WITNESS FEES

D

No witness fee requested or required under Iowa Code section 622.74.

D

I have tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance in the amount of
$
and the mileage allowed by law in the amount of$
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,,for a total of$ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

My fees are $ _ _ _ _ _ _ for travel and $_ _ _ _ _ _ for services, for a total of$

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: - - - - - - - - - - - -

Server's signature

Printed name and title

{02050486.DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000092

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a genuine copy of the foregoing document was served upon
, 20_ by the
the persons named below and at the address indicated on the_ day of
following method_ _ _ __

Name and address of party or attorney:

Signature of server

{02050486.DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000093

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)
1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.
a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a
subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost
earnings and reasonable attorney's fees, on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.
( 1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may
serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises, or to producing electronically stored information
in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance
or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an
order compelling production or inspection.
2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is
neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
c. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for the same purposes
specified in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.
d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.
(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 50 miles from where that
person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, except that a person may be ordered to attend
trial anywhere within the state in which the person is served with a subpoena;
3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
4. subjects a person to undue burden.
(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
1. disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or
2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in
dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.
3. a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 50
miles to attend trial.
(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule 1.1701(4)(d)(2), the
court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions
if the serving party:
1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue
hardship; and
2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.
a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to producing
documents or electronically stored information:
(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are
kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the
demand.
(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not specified. If a subpoena does not specify a
form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding need not produce
the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not provide discovery of

{02050486.DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000094

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of
undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show
that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court
may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule 1.504(1)(b). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
b. Claiming privilege or protection.
( 1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged
or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
1. expressly make the claim; and
2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that,
without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of
privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that
received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return,
sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until
the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being
notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The
person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

{02050486.DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000095

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Exhibit A
As used in this subpoena, the term "documents" has the same meaning as it is

understood and construed to have as used in Rule 1.512 of the Iowa Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
As used in this subpoena, the term "DCI" means the Iowa Department of

Criminal Investigation and all of its all employees, agents, and investigators.
If privilege is asserted as the basis for withholding from production any

documents identified by this subpoena, please prepare a privilege log, setting forth with
respect to each withheld document its author, any persons to whom it was directed, the
date on which it was prepared, and the general subject matter of the document.
Documents to be produced:
1.

All documents, whether in print, audio, or video, reflecting or relating to
any interview of or conversation with Jason Carter conducted by the DCI
and/or the Marion County Sheriffs Office following the death of Shirley
Carter on June 19, 2015.

2.

All documents, whether in print, audio, or video, reflecting or relating to
any interview of or conversation with Bill G. Carter conducted by the DCI
and/or the Marion County Sheriffs Office following the death of Shirley
Carter on June 19, 2015.

3.

Any report or other document reflecting or relating to any investigation by
any agent or officer of the DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriffs Office's
regarding the level of grain contained in Bill G. Carter's semi-tractor trailer
on June 19, 2015.

{02050488. DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000096

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

4·

All documents reflecting or relating to cell phone text messages made to
and from phone numbers (641) 891-7895, (641) 891-9584, (641) 891-4775
on or around June 19, 2015.

5·

All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the processing of, and
photography of, the home and premises in which Shirley Carter's death
apparently occurred on June 19, 2015 by DCI and/or the Marion County
Sheriffs Office. This item includes but is not limited to any sketch,
diagram, or map of the home and/ or premises.

6.

All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the collection of, and the
analysis of, fingerprint evidence gathered and processed by DCI and/ or
the Marion County Sheriffs Office from the home and premises in which
Shirley Carter's death apparently occurred on June 19, 2015.

7·

All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the collection of, and the
analysis of, firearms and/ or ballistics evidence gathered and processed by
DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriffs Office from the home and
premises in which Shirley Carter's death apparently occurred on June 19,
2015.

8.

Transcripts of the depositions taken pursuant to I. R. Crim. P. 2.5(6) of
Shelly Carter, Chase Carter, Cecil Harry, and Ginger Harry.

9.

All security or other video evidence depicting Bill G. Carter at Casey's
General Stores outlets in or near either Lovillia, Iowa or Milo, Iowa on
June 19, 2015.

{02050488. DOCX}

EXHIBIT EE

Def.Appx.000097

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

 

BILLY DEAN CARTER, BILL G. CARTER Case No. LACV 095809
and ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER by 

and through BILL G. CARTER, Executor, 

Plaintiffs, 
v. 3 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF
SUBPOENAS
JASON CARTER, 
Defendant. i


 

The Plaintiffs, the Estate of Shirley? D. Carter, by and through Bill G. Carter, Bill G.
Carter individually, and Billy D. Carter, hereby give notice pursuant to Rule of the

service of the attached subpoenas directed to:

1. Anna Young, Dept. of Criminal Investigation;

2. Mark Ludwick, Dept. of Criminal Investigation;
3. Mike Halverson, Dept. of Criminal Investigation;
4. Elizabeth Renter, Dept. of Criminal Investigation;
5. Vic Murillo, Dept. of Criminal Investigation; and

.6. Jon Thorpe, Dept. of Public Safety.

 

THE WEINHARDT LAW FIRM

By 
Mark E. Weinhardt AT0008280
Todd M. Lantz AT0010162
David N. Fautsch AT0013223

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Telephone: (515) 244-3100

E-mail: mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com

- -
DeprpX.000098

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

tlantz@weinhardtlaw.com
dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com

:Yis,? MYERS, DANS SMITH

61/) 

 

yRon Danks Arooao? 954
Carly Smith AT009738
201 W. Monroe Street
PO. Box 
Pleasantville, IA 5025

Telephone: (515) 848-5413
E-mail: rondanks@iowatelecom.net


ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BILL D.
CARTER AND ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D.
CARTER by and through BILL G. CARTER,
EXECUTOR

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certi?es that the foregoing instrument
was served upon the parties to this action by serving a
.ch of the attorneys listed below on

  

2017 by
El FAX
Hand Delivered El Electronic Mail
FedEx/ Overnight 121 CM CF
Carrier
Steve Wandro
Grant Woodard
Terry Gibson

2501 Grand Ave., Suite 
Des Moines, IA 50312

Attorneys for Defendant

Signature: 1% 9W

 

121-]qu

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW No. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Anna Young, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny, IA
50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19, 2015.

All physical evidence, exhibits, ?ngerprint exemplars or cards, and reports associated with the
analysis of ?ngerprints located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion
County on or after June 19, 2015.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

All physical evidence, exhibits, and reports associated with the analysis of ballistics, gunshot, or
trajectory evidence located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County on
or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: June 12, 2017

Attomey?s signature

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244?3 100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney Who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person Who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from'the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumu

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial. 

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1 shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Mark Ludwick, Department of Criminal Investigation, 260 NW 48th P1., Des Moines, IA
50313

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: June 12, 2017

Attorney?s Signature



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
(1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244-3100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial. 

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, 0r regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a "subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person Withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Mike Halverson, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd, Ankeny,
IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19,2015.

All physical evidence, exhibits, ?ngerprint exemplars or cards, and reports associated with the
analysis of ?ngerprints located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion
County on or after June 19, 2015.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

All physical evidence, exhibits, and reports associated with the analysis of ballistics, gunshot, or
trajectory evidence located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County on
or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: June 12, 2017



Attorney?s signature

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
(1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244-3100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inSpecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or fomis in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule 1.5 The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW NO. LACVO95809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
v. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Elizabeth Reuter, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd, Ankeny,
IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper



Attorney?s signature

Date: June 12, 2017



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
(1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e?mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244?3100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or 
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney?s fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection. 

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial?preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Mike Halverson, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd, Ankeny,
IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19,2015.

All physical evidence, exhibits, ?ngerprint exemplars or cards, and reports associated with the
analysis of ?ngerprints located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion
County on or after June 19, 2015.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

All physical evidence, exhibits, and reports associated with the analysis of ballistics, gunshot, or
trajectory evidence located in or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County on
or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: June 12, 2017



Attorney?s signature

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
(1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244-3100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inSpecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or fomis in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule 1.5 The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT.

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW No. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING 0R TRIAL
v. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Jon Thorpe, Department of Public Safety, 215 E. 7th St., Des Moines, IA 50319

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: June 26, 2017 Time: 11:00 am.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

All reports and/or memoranda you generated in the course of your work on or in connection with
the death of Shirley Carter occurring in Marion County on or about June 19, 2015.

All reports and/or memoranda you generated or relied upon for any analysis, examination, or
investigation of the scene at, in, or around the home of Bill and Shirley Carter in Marion County
on or after June 19, 2015.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper



Attorney?s signature

Date: June 12, 2017



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY
(1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

Mark E. Weinhardt

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312

(515) 244-3100
mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.corn



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of 1ntent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.



mumn

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule 1.5 The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial?preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the Withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, Without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim. I

(2) Information'produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.



mumn

E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________
BILLY DEAN CARTER,
BILL G. CARTER and ESTATE OF
SHIRLEY D. CARTER by and through
BILL G. CARTER, Executor,

Case No. LACV095809

Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO
PLAINTIFFS’ RESISTANCE TO
JASON CARTER,
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO
AND MOTION TO QUASH
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENA TO DCI
______________________________________________________________________________
vs.

Defendant Jason Carter states for his reply to Plaintiffs’ resistance to Defendant’s Objection and
Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to DCI (“Motion to Quash”) as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena to
DCI. The Court should grant Defendant’s motion because (1) Plaintiffs have been aware of the existence
of the documents they now seek since at least July 2016; (2) obtaining new counsel does not grant a party
the right to a new trial in violation of established discovery deadlines; (3) these reports and documents are
hearsay and privileged, and would substantially alter the trial as prepared; (4) this is not a criminal
prosecution, and the documents Plaintiffs seek are part of an ongoing homicide investigation; and (5) the
subpoena is untimely. Plaintiffs’ resistance fails for the reasons explained below.
II. ARGUMENT
A.

This is Not “New” Evidence.
Plaintiffs use Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Services, 816 N.W.2d 378, 385 (Iowa 2012) to support

their claim that the Court should allow new documents to be produced and entered into evidence. It is
unquestionable that the Iowa Supreme Court held in Whitley that new evidence should not be excluded
simply because it was discovered late. The essential distinction between Whitley and the case at hand,
however, is that this purported evidence is not “new” and it was not “discovered late.”
1

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000124

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

Plaintiffs subpoenaed this very same information in July 2016. To now assert that they only just
realized that this evidence existed or the extent of its importance or probative nature is misleading at best
and utterly lacking in factual support. Plaintiffs knew extensive interviews were conducted after Shirley’s
death the same day they occurred. Plaintiffs knew DCI took fingerprint evidence, ballistics evidence,
photographs, and had information regarding Jason Carter and Bill Carter’s respective timelines. Shirley
Carter died almost two years ago, and DCI investigated the scene of the crime and took physical evidence
from the home until June 21, 2015, when it allowed Bill Carter to return to his home. In July 2016,
Plaintiffs subpoenaed the very same information they now seek. They had six months to object to the
original subpoena response for insufficiency but did not. Plaintiffs’ current belief in the inadequate
performance of original counsel, whom they chose, does not trigger application of Whitley to Defendant’s
detriment.
B.

New Counsel Does Not Grant a Party the Right to a New Trial.
The timing of the April 2017 subpoena makes it clear that Plaintiffs’ new counsel holds a

different opinion regarding the documents received in response to the July 2016 subpoena than the
opinion held by Plaintiffs’ original counsel. Original counsel never asserted alleged inadequacy of the
documents they received from the seven-month old subpoena. Plaintiffs’ new counsel asserted its
inadequacy almost as soon as they entered an appearance in this case. The evidence from this almost twoyear old homicide did not suddenly appear or become important or especially probative, and Plaintiffs did
not suddenly discover it. Plaintiffs’ new counsel recently entered the case and, it appears to Defendant,
would like to start over.
Hiring new counsel does not entitle Plaintiffs to start a trial over again and disregard the trial
scheduling plan, which was filed well over a year ago, or redo the case that has been built over the past
two years. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiffs are willing to “not oppose” any continuance that
Defendant may request in order to go over this “new” evidence, but Defendant is eager to proceed to
trial—not to “stand in the way of finding the truth” as Plaintiffs state, but because Defendant has been
ready and waiting to proceed to trial since March. This trial has put immeasurable stress on Defendant’s
2

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000125

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

family, including his wife and two young children, as well as his finances. To allow Plaintiffs to violate
established discovery rules in this way would be disruptive to the court system, not to mention inefficient,
and would create chaos in Defendant’s life. More importantly, it would set a dangerous precedent that
when a party decides, two months before trial, to hire new counsel, that new counsel can essentially start
the case over in the way they want to do it, in disregard of discovery deadlines.
To Defendant’s knowledge, there is no civil procedure rule entitling a party to start a trial over
again and disregard discovery deadlines upon the hiring of new counsel, nor do Plaintiffs identify one to
support their arguments. This rule does not exist because it invites chaos. It would render discovery
deadlines completely meaningless if a party could circumvent them by switching attorneys. It would
impose an unjust, prejudicial, and harmful burden upon the other party who rightfully relies on and
complies with the deadlines in preparing his or her case. Plaintiffs’ offer to “not oppose” a continuance in
order to “further justice” while at the same time asserting that evidence Plaintiffs have been aware of
since at least July 2016 is somehow “new” is the type of maneuver that the court system was carefully
crafted to prevent. It would be both manifestly unjust and an abuse of discretion for the Court to
legitimize this behavior.
C.

These Reports and Documents Are Hearsay and Privileged.
i.

The reports are hearsay and would require substantial new testimony and introduction of
witnesses.

The reports and documents Plaintiffs seek to introduce were created by DCI personnel. As such,
they are hearsay. See Iowa R. Evid. 803(8)(B)(i) (providing that investigative reports by police and other
law enforcement personnel do not fall within the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule).
The Court stated clearly at the March 2017 hearing it would not allow hearsay from DCI’s investigation
in this trial. Accordingly, Plaintiffs could not seek to use these documents in trial without first opening a
vast new door for the testimony of DCI investigators and the people who compiled these reports.
Depositions would have to be taken and both sides would be forced to prepare for what is essentially an

3

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000126

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

entirely new—and criminal—case. The Court cannot and should not permit such an expansion and
redirection of the case on the eve of trial.
ii.

Iowa Code § 622.11 (1983) protects the disclosure of criminal investigation files to
private litigants because communications made to DCI officials are confidential records
under Iowa’s freedom of information statute.

Iowa Code section 622.11 (1983) protects the state’s criminal investigation files from disclosure
to private litigants. It provides:
A public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
This “cloak of protection” extends to a public officer being examined and prohibits disclosure of the
protected information. State ex rel. Shanahan, 356 N.W.2d 523, 527 (Iowa 1984). Communications made
to DCI officers are considered confidential records under Iowa’s freedom of information statute, which
provides:
The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a
court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to
release information:
....
5. Peace officers’ investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in
this Code. However, the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and
circumstances surrounding a crime or incident shall not be kept confidential under this
section, except in those unusual circumstances where disclosure would plainly and
seriously jeopardize an investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of an
individual.
Iowa Code § 68A.7(5). The exception carved out in the last sentence does not apply here because DCI has
already released that basic data about the homicide of Shirley Carter. This Court should follow the Iowa
Supreme Court’s lead in Shanahan to also conclude that the DCI files here are protected from public
disclosure by Iowa Code section 68A.7 and also subject to the qualified privilege of Iowa Code § 622.11.
iii.

Iowa Code § 622.11 (1983) protects the disclosure of criminal investigation files to
private litigants because public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

Several public interests would suffer by the disclosure of these documents. In making its
determination, the Court “must consider the adverse effect release of that information to the litigants may
4

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000127

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

have on DCI criminal investigations in general, not just the possible adverse effect release may have on
the investigation of this particular . . . homicide.” Shanahan, 356 N.W.2d at 529.
The legislature clearly intended by [enacting Iowa Code sections 622.11 and 68A.7(5)] that
DCI investigators and other peace officers should ordinarily be allowed to perform much
of their investigatory work in secret and have their sensitive files concerning their
investigation protected from public disclosure. Surely one purpose of permitting the State
to keep its files confidential and invoke the public officer privilege was to encourage
persons to come forward with information which might be used to solve crimes and deter
criminal activity. Another purpose would be to allow fellow officers privately and
confidentially to discuss and record their findings and theories about each case which is
under investigation.
Even in the absence of controlling statutes, courts have recognized this important public
purpose of allowing criminal investigation to be conducted in relative secrecy. As concisely
stated in Black v. Sheraton Corporation of America, 50 F.R.D. 130 (D.D.C. 1970):
The results of investigations of alleged criminal activity are by their nature
the type of information that the public interest requires be kept secret.
Id. at 133; see Crawford v. Dominic, 469 F. Supp. 260, 265 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (“Clearly the
public has the strongest interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police files when those
files concern an ongoing criminal investigation”).
Shanahan, 356 N.W.2d at 529. The homicide of Shirley Carter is a very serious crime to which no statute
of limitations applies. The investigation of her murder is continuing and ongoing. DCI has voluminous
records reflecting a considerable investment of State resources and manpower in this investigation.
Additionally, “[t]here is much in the investigating officer’s report which is his unsupported theory and
much more which is hearsay and rumor.” Id.
The State, in its attempt to cooperate with Plaintiffs, responded to the July 2016 subpoena with
various documents concerning the scene of the crime, statements of medical examiners, and other
documents. The scope of permissible discovery in civil actions is broad and thus gave Plaintiffs several
alternatives for obtaining the same information they again seek from DCI’s files. Plaintiffs can, and have,
deposed persons whom DCI interviewed. They have inspected the scene of the crime. They have retained
experts to reconstruct the crime scene. Put simply, Plaintiffs have not made a strong enough showing of
need for the materials in DCI’s files to overcome DCI’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of those
files.

5

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000128

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

While Plaintiffs are correct that the truth-seeking process of our judicial system requires that
litigants be given wide access to sources of relevant information, that principle “is not absolute but must
be balanced against other public interests.” Id. at 531. The information in the DCI file is not critical to an
exhaustive presentation of the factual circumstances in this lawsuit. The Shanahan district court abused
its discretion in ordering the DCI to give civil litigants and their attorneys access to the criminal
investigation file. Id. Defendant urges this Court not to make the same error.
iv.

This is not a criminal prosecution.

Plaintiffs assert that this “new” evidence is essential because they want the jury to understand
how crime scene evidence was collected and processed and the impressions of the criminal investigators.
In essence, Plaintiffs are attempting to put on a criminal case in a civil trial. That approach is
impermissible under Iowa law. This is not State v. Jason Carter. The State’s investigation into Shirley
Carter’s death is ongoing. It is not the place of a private citizen to conclude—especially prior to the State
closing its criminal investigation into a murder—that it is unhappy with the direction the criminal
investigation is taking and attempt to use in a civil trial the materials from an ongoing criminal
investigation. If the State would like to charge Jason Carter using this purportedly crucial evidence
showing Jason Carter’s responsibility for Shirley Carter’s death, the State can do so. Even setting aside
the violation of discovery deadlines and indifference to the case that has been crafted and prepared over
the last two years, it would be a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of discretion for the Court to allow
Plaintiffs to use the system in this way.
E.

The Purported Evidence Does Not Advance the Search for Truth.
Quashing the subpoena would not cripple adjudication of this case. Plaintiffs had the opportunity

to object to the July 2016 subpoena response as insufficient but failed to do so. It would be unjust to allow
them a second opportunity since the evidence sought is not new. Defendant is not standing in the way of
truth-finding but rather asserting his right to rely on the discovery deadlines and scheduling of this case.
Moreover, Plaintiffs and Defendant have conducted extensive depositions in which both parties are
interviewed and have had the opportunity to explain their understanding of the facts. Plaintiffs have hired
6

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000129

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

experts to recreate the crime scene and those experts have written reports and been deposed. Plaintiffs and
Defendant have been carefully examining evidence for the past two years. This trial is not an opportunity
for Plaintiffs to criminally prosecute an individual the State has determined—again, in its ongoing
criminal investigation—should not be criminally prosecuted. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, quashing the
subpoena would not interfere with the search for truth. The State’s criminal investigation is ongoing, and
quashing the subpoena in no way interferes with that
F.

The Subpoena is Untimely.
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the initial discovery order did set a date certain for closing

discovery. Plaintiffs and Defendant held a discovery conference as required by Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.507 and
submitted the corresponding Trial Scheduling and Discovery Plan. In this plan, the parties agreed that all
written discovery would be served no later than 90 days before trial and that all depositions would be
completed no later than 60 days before trial. See Trial Scheduling and Discovery Plan, at 2. This Plan was
filed on February 23, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the Court ordered that trial be set for April 3, 2017. The
Order Continuing Trial issued in March 2017 unambiguously stated that the “deadlines established by the
previous scheduling order are not amended by this order [rescheduling trial for June 26, 2017].” See
Order Continuing Trial. The deadlines established by the previous scheduling order were for a trial set for
April 3, 2017. They did not contemplate a continuance, and the Order Continuing Trial clearly recognized
that fact. Discovery closed pursuant to the original deadlines contemplated in the Trial Scheduling and
Discovery Plan; thus, this subpoena is untimely and should be quashed on that basis alone.
G.

Defendant Has Standing to Object to this Subpoena.
i.

The subpoena subjects Defendant to an undue burden.

Iowa courts look with disfavor upon standing objections. State v. Johnson, 237 N.W.2d 819, 823
(Iowa 1976). Plaintiffs assert that Defendant lacks standing to object to a third-party subpoena on the
grounds of burden and cost because Defendant has no personal right or privilege with respect to the
subject matter of the subpoena. This is inaccurate. This third-party subpoena subjects Defendant to the
undue burden explained in Defendant’s original motion to quash—if the motion to quash is denied,
7

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000130

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

Defendant will be forced to go through substantial amounts of new discovery shortly before trial, and well
after the close of discovery.
Plaintiffs purport to be willing to alleviate this burden by “not opposing” any continuance that
Defendant might request; however, a continuance at this stage in litigation also imposes an undue burden
on Defendant. Defendant already agreed to a continuance because of a shortage of courtrooms despite
being ready for trial in April. Defendant’s wife and children have been subjected to immeasurable stress
stemming from this trial. This trial and its accompanying costs over the past two years have severely
affected Defendant’s finances. A continuance is not simply a grant of more time to Defendant – it is a
guarantee of additional and significant cost and stress for a trial that would already be completed if
Defendant and Plaintiffs had not agreed to a continuance based on a shortage of courtrooms. Succinctly
put, to find that a continuance somehow alleviates the undue burden placed on Defendant by allowing
“new” DCI investigation documents into the trial would be both inaccurate and unjust. Defendant and his
family would be greatly burdened by another continuance.
The Court made it clear in March when Plaintiffs and Defendant discussed the courtroom
shortage and agreed to a continuance that substantially changing the case after April would not be
permitted. Plaintiffs agreed with Defendant that the case and the evidence thus far compiled would remain
the same. Continuing discovery at this point in the trial is inconsistent with that agreement.
ii.

DCI Objected to The July 2016 Subpoena.

It should also be noted that DCI submitted a motion to quash the July 2016 subpoena on the
grounds that the materials requested are part of an active DCI homicide investigation. As DCI asserted in
its motion to quash, law enforcement investigative materials are confidential under Iowa law, and such
confidentiality extends to attempts by civil litigants to obtain this information. State ex rel. Shanahan, 356
N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1984). As the Court in Shanahan stated, “clearly the public has the strongest interest
in maintaining the confidentiality of police files when those files concern an ongoing criminal
investigation.” Id. at 529. DCI further stated in its motion:

8

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000131

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

Requiring the [r]elease of a law enforcement investigative file relating to a murder to civil
litigants, including persons who may well be the subject of the investigation not only defies
common sense but finds no support in law.
[ ] Iowa law is also in accordance with federal law with respect to obtaining such law
enforcement investigative materials. In the federal system there is a common law privilege
protecting law enforcement investigative materials from disclosure and, as here, “[t]he
purpose of the privilege is to prevent disclosure of law enforcement techniques and
procedures, to preserve the confidentiality of sources, to protect witnesses and law
enforcement personnel, to safeguard the privacy of individuals involved in an investigation,
and to otherwise prevent interference in an investigation.” Raz v. Mueller, 389 F. Supp. 2d
1057, 1062 (W.D. Ark. 2005), citing Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440 (S.D.
Ind. 2003).
See Ex. A, DCI Mot. to Quash at 2-3. It is not clear to Defendant why DCI has not similarly objected to
this identical subpoena filed in April 2017. DCI’s reasoning for its motion to quash the July 2016
subpoena still stands. The documents requested are part of an ongoing criminal investigation in which
both Plaintiffs and Defendant have been involved. Requiring DCI to release such information defies
common sense and the law and, as the Iowa Supreme Court held in Shanahan, would be an abuse of
discretion.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant is not standing in the way of truth-finding; on the contrary, Defendant is eager to
proceed to trial so that the truth can be shown. Defendant was ready to proceed to trial months ago, when
the trial was originally scheduled to begin, and well after the DCI had responded to Plaintiffs’ July 2016
subpoena demanding the same documents that the April 2017 subpoena demands. If Defendant’s current
objection to the April 2017 subpoena was made to obstruct justice and truth-finding, as Plaintiffs assert,
Defendant would also have objected to the July 2016 subpoena. Defendant clearly did not object at that
time; however, DCI did object.
What Defendant objects to is Plaintiffs’ attempts to create a new trial based on old evidence of
which Plaintiffs have been aware for years, in violation of established discovery deadlines, because
Plaintiffs have engaged new counsel. If Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the evidence produced by DCI in
July 2016, they had six months to object and request additional documents. It would be a miscarriage of
justice and an abuse of discretion for the Court to allow Plaintiffs to continue to compile evidence so
9

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000132

 E-FILED
E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
JUN 16
30 10:22
12:08 AM
PM MARION
MARION -- CLERK
CLERK OF
OF DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT

close to trial simply because they failed to object to the responsive nature of the documents received
seven months ago in a timely manner. Defendant also objects to the disclosure of confidential police
investigative materials from an active homicide investigation to people who may well be under
investigation for that crime.
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena to
DCI.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alison F. Kanne
Alison F. Kanne AT0013262
Steven P. Wandro AT0008177
Grant A. Woodard AT0012026
Terry L. Gibson AT0008940
WANDRO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2501 Grand Ave. Suite B
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: (515) 281-1475
Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
Email: akanne@2501grand.com
swandro@2501grand.com
tgibson@2501grand.com
gwoodard@2501grand.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

10

EXHIBIT GG

Def.Appx.000133

 E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFES, SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
v. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Jon Thorpe, Department of Public Safety, 215 E. 7th St, Des Moines, IA 50319

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court officer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

Trooper Thorpe shall bring his Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder
of Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



Attorney?s signature

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

David Fautsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564-5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

c. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person Who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert?s opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
1.1701 the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the Withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW No. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING 0R TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Vic Murillo, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny, IA
50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

Agent Murillo shall bring his Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder
of Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017





Attomey?s signature

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e?mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter Who issues or requests this subpoena:

David Fautsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564-5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand. 

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW NO. LACVO95809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, -
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 

PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND

TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION


JASON CARTER, 

DEFENDANT. 

To: Mark Ludwick, Department of Criminal Investigation, 260 NW 48th Pl., Des Moines, IA
50313

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place Specified below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

Agent Ludwick shall bring his Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder
of Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



ATt?orney?s signature

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

David Fautsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564?5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney Who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

c. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM-MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Elizabeth Reuter, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny,
IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things:

Agent Reuter shall bring her Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder of
Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



AEorney?s signature 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter Who issues or requests this subpoena:

David autsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave., Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564-5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

c. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule 1.5 The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial?preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW NO. LACVO95809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA To APPEAR AND
TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
v. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Donnie Schnitker, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd.,
Ankeny, IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place Speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things:

Agent Schnitker Shall bring his Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder
of Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



Attomey?s Signature

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e?mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

David Fautsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave., Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564?5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

(1. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
1. 1701(4)(d)(2), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE NO. LAW NO. LACV095809
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 
PLAINTIFFS, SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND
TESTIF AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION

JASON CARTER, 
DEFENDANT. 

To: Anna Young, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny, IA
50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138

Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored information,
or tangible things:

Ms. Young shall bring her Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the murder of
Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



Attorney?s signature

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons Who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

David autsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564-5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney?s fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting from
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from Where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert?s study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
1.17 the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or- electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person responding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim.

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D. CARTER, CASE No. LAW NO. LACV095809 7
BY AND THROUGH BILL G. CARTER, 
EXECUTOR, BILL G. CARTER, 
INDIVIDUALLY, AND BILLY D. 
CARTER, 

PLAINTIEFS, SUBPOENA T0 APPEAR AND

TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL
V. IN A CIVIL ACTION
. 

JASON CARTER, 

DEFENDANT. 

To: Mike Halverson, Department of Criminal Investigation, 2240 South Ankeny Blvd., Ankeny,
IA 50023

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Iowa District Court for Marion County at
.the time, date, and place speci?ed below to testify at a hearing or trial in the above case. When
you arrive, you must remain in the court until a judge or court of?cer allows you to leave. If you
are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more of?cers,
directors, or managing agents, or designate other person who consents to testify on your behalf
about the following matter, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Marion County Courthouse, 214 E. Main St, 3rd Floor, Knoxville, Iowa 50138
Date: December 5, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m.

You must also bring with you the following books, documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things:

Agent Halverson shall bring his Report and/or Laboratory File, if any, associated with the
murder of Mrs. Shirley Carter.

Form of electronically stored information to be produced: Paper

Date: November 2, 2017



?omey?s signature 

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

PLEASE NOTE: If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the
disability coordinator at: Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing The Estate of
Shirley Bill G. Carter and Billy D. Carter who issues or requests this subpoena:

David Fautsch

The Weinhardt Law Firm

2600 Grand Ave, Suite 450

Des Moines, IA 50312

Email: dfautsch@weinhardtlaw.com
Phone: (515) 564-5273

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) and 1.1701(5)

1.1701(4) Protecting a person subject to a subpoena.

a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees,
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

b. Command to produce materials or permit inspection.

(1) Appearance not required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in
person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a Hearing,
hearing, or trial.

(2) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to
permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting
the premises, or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time speci?ed for compliance or 14 days
after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

1. At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the
issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

2. These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer from signi?cant expense resulting ?om
compliance.

0. Attendance. Any party shall be permitted to attend at the same time and place and for
the same purposes speci?ed in the subpoena. No prior notice of intent to attend is required.

d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.

(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena
that:

1. fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

2. requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's of?cer to travel more than 50
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
except that a person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere Within the state in which the person
is served with a subpoena;

3. requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or

4. subjects a person to undue burden.

(2) When permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing
court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

1. disclosing a trade secret or other con?dential research, development, or commercial
information; or

2. disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe speci?c
occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. a person who is neither a party nor a party?s of?cer to incur substantial expense to
travel more than 50 miles to attend trial.

(3) Specifying conditions as an alternative. In the circumstances described in rule
the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance
or production under speci?ed conditions if the serving party:

1. shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
without undue hardship; and

2. ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

1.1701(5) Duties in responding to a subpoena.

a. Producing documents or electronically stored information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:

(1) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
correspond to the categories in the demand.

(2) Form for producing electronically stored information not speci?ed. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding
must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable
form or forms.

(3) Electronically stored information produced in only one form. The person responding
need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(4) Inaccessible electronically stored information. The person reSponding need not
provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identi?es as
not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or
for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of rule The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

b. Claiming privilege or protection.

(1) Information withheld. A person Withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

1. expressly make the claim; and

2. describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties
to assess the claim. 

(2) Information produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject
to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
noti?ed, a party must return, sequester, or destroy the speci?ed information and any
copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being noti?ed; and
may present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.

E-FILED 2018 MAY 30 12:08 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
NOV 30
03 12:08
10:53 PM
AM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________
BILLY DEAN CARTER,
BILL G. CARTER and ESTATE OF
SHIRLEY D. CARTER by and through
BILL G. CARTER, Executor,

Case No. LACV095809

Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’
SUBPOENAS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

JASON CARTER,

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW Defendant Jason Carter, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and for his
Motion to Quash Portions of Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas to Law Enforcement states as follows:
1.

On November 2, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendant copies of the subpoenas

they have served or intend to serve in the above-captioned matter. See Ex. A, Plaintiffs’
Subpoenas to Law Enforcement Officials.
2.

Plaintiffs intend to subpoena or have subpoenaed the following law enforcement

officers:
a.

Jon Thorpe, Department of Public Safety

b.

Vic Murillo, Department of Criminal Investigation

c.

Mark Ludwick, Department of Criminal Investigation

d.

Elizabeth Reuter, Department of Criminal Investigation

e.

Donnie Schnitker, Department of Criminal Investigation

f.

Anna Young, Department of Criminal Investigation

g.

Mike Halverson, Department of Criminal Investigation

1

EXHIBIT II

Def.Appx.000163

 E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
NOV 30
03 12:08
10:53 PM
AM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3.

Each of these subpoenas command the law enforcement officer or special agent to

appear at trial and to bring with them their reports and/or laboratory files associated with the
murder of Shirley Carter.
4.

This Court specifically ruled in its August 22, 2017 ruling that “subpoenas

addressed to an officer or special agent should not be a dragnet that directs the officer to produce
records or files not available to both parties or that expands the information previously provided
by a law enforcement agency.” See Ex. B, August 22, 2017 Ruling.
5.

These subpoenas commanding law enforcement officers or special agents are in

direct violation of the August 22, 2017 ruling. They direct these officers to produce records or
files not available to both parties and that expand the information previously provided by DCI.
6.

Defendant will have no opportunity to review any of these reports which Plaintiffs

have commanded the law enforcement officers to bring and will be subjected to unfair surprise
and prejudice should they be permitted to bring said reports/laboratory files.
7.

Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are in direct contradiction to what this Court specifically

ordered on August 22, 2017.
WHEREFORE, Defendant specifically requests that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion
to Quash Portions of Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas to Law Enforcement Officials and quash the portions
of the subpoenas commanding law enforcement officials and/or special agents to bring copies of
their reports and/or laboratory files associated with the investigation into Shirley Carter’s
murder.

2

EXHIBIT II

Def.Appx.000164

 E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
NOV 30
03 12:08
10:53 PM
AM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alison F. Kanne
Alison F. Kanne
AT0013262
Steven P. Wandro
AT0008177
Wandro & Associates, P.C.
2501 Grand Ave. Suite B
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: (515) 281-1475
Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
Email: akanne@2501grand.com
swandro@2501grand.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon the below-listed parties
to this action by the CM/ECF system on November 3, 2017.
/s/ Alison F. Kanne
David Fautsch
Todd Lantz
Mark Weinhardt
The Weinhardt Law Firm
2600 Grand Ave., Suite 450
Des Moines, IA 50312
Ron Danks
Carly Smith
Myers, Myers, Danks & Smith
201 W. Monroe St.
PO Box C
Pleasantville, IA

3

EXHIBIT II

Def.Appx.000165

 E-FILED 2018
2017 MAY
NOV 30
06 12:08
12:16 PM MARION - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________
THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY D.
CARTER, By and Through BILL G.
CARTER, EXECUTOR; BILL G.
CARTER, Individually, and BILLY D.
CARTER,

)
Case No. LACV095809
)
)
)
)
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
)
SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL
Plaintiffs,
)
INVESTIGATION’S JOINDER
)
IN DEFENDANT’S MOTION
vs.
)
TO QUASH PORTIONS OF
)
PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENAS TO
JASON CARTER,
)
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal
Investigation, on behalf of the following subpoenaed persons: Jon Thorup, Vic Murillo,
Mark Ludwick, Elizabeth Reuter, Donnie Schnitker, Anna Young and Mike Halverson,
and hereby joins in Defendant’s Motion to Quash Portions of Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas to
Law Enforcement Officials for the reasons stated in said motion.
THOMAS J. MILLER
IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Jeffrey C. Peterzalek
JEFFREY C. PETERZALEK
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
Hoover Building, 2nd Floor
1305 E. Walnut
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Ph: (515) 281-4213
E-mail: Jeffrey.Peterzalek@iowa.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR IOWA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

All Parties Served Electronically

EXHIBIT JJ

Def.Appx.000166