STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS.

COUNTY OF COOK )

F, LED JUDGE STEVEN J. GOEBEL. 1954

SEP 03 2012

CLERK_QF THE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUN1CIl/MINALCd~1~g~foURT

COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

vs

ANNABEL MELONGO

) ) ) )

)

08CR-I0502

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO CAROL SPIZZIRRI AND SHAHNA G. MONGE BY DEFENDANT

NOW COME the People of the State of Illinois, by their attorney. ANlT A AL VAREZ. State's

Attorney of Cook County. through her Ass istant. Robert Pod lasek. and move this Honorable Court to

quash any and all subpoenas. known and unknown. issued by defendant to Carol Spizzini and Shahna

G. Monge. In support of said motion. the People assert the follo\\'ing:

1. On May 28.2008 . defendant \\as indicted for the offense of computer tampering under

case number 08CR-I 0502.

2. On or about August 31. 20 J I defendant elected to represent herself pro se.

3. Defendant issued a subpoena clZlces teczlI77 to Carol Spizzirri on or about July 2 7 ~ 2012

requesting documents.

Carol Spizzirri complied with defendant ' s subpoena duces lecum by having the

requested material scanned and placed on a flash drive. She then sent that information to this

Honorable Court through the Cook County State's Attorney' s Office since defendant failed

to provide a mailing address or a telephone number for the Court.

5. Defendant issued another subpoena to Caro l Spizzirri on or about September 18. 2012 I

requiring her personal appearance, with additional documents, before thi s Honorable Comt

on October 9, 2012.

6. Carol Spizzirri resides in San Marcos, California.

7. On September 18,2012 defendant requested pennission to subpoena Shahna G . Monge.

8. Shahna G. Monge resides in Minnesota.

9. The defendant failed to follow the procedures outlined in the Interstate Compact

Agreement on Out-of-State-Witnesses.

10. The pertinent section of the statute states :

§ 725 ILCS 220/3. Witness from another state summoned to testify in this State Sec. 3. Witness from another state summoned to test ify in thi s State. If a person in any state, whi ch by its laws has made provi sion for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosec utions. or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a court in thi s state. or in a grand jury investigati on which has commenced or is about to commence. a judge of such court may issue a certifi cate under the sea l of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be required . Said cenificate may include a recommendation that the \\i tness be taken into immediate custody and deli vered to an officer of thi s state to assure his attendance in thi s state . Th is certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the w itness is found.

11. As the Court in People v. Antoine Smith . 362111. App 3d /062. /0 77; 841 NE2d

-189; 2005 Ill. App. LEX1S 1260; 299111 Dec. 77 (F irst District 2005) stated:

"Generally, a state has no power to subpoena w itnesses over whi ch it has no juri sdiction. Thus, the constituti onal ri ght of compulsory process, which includes the subpoena of witnesses, is app licable to the states but extends only to in-state process. In the absence of an interstate compact. compulsory process cmIDot extend beyond the territory of the state, and a state court cannot require the

attendance of a witness who is a nonresident of. and is absent from , the state ." 81 Am. J Ul'. 2d Witnesses §15 (2000) .

12 . Further, the Interstate Compact Agreement on Out-of-State-Witnesses applies only to

material witnesses . " Whether a particular witness is material requires more than a showing 2

that he or she may have admissible testimony, but also requires a qualitative judgment that

the testimony is necessary to the proceeding." People v. Burt, 168 Ill. 2d 49,74, 212 Ill.

Dec. 893, 658 NE. 2d 375 (1995), cert. denied, 517 Us. 1211, 116 S. Ct. 1832, 134 L. Ed.

2d 936 (1996).

13 . Defendant's subpoena for Carol Spizzirri's personal appearance to produce additional

documents is unnecessary. Defendant should have sought permission to issue a second

subpoena duces tecum and not require a personal appearance. It is unclear what the

defendant 's intentions are.

14. Further. neither Carol Spizzirri , nor Shahna G. Monge are material witnesses with

regard to the defendant" s motion to dismiss the indictment.

15. Defendant' s fail ure to comply with the requirements of the Interstate Compact

Agreement on Out-of-State-Witnesses. the misuse of personal appearance subpoenas fo r

documents. and the defendant's fa ilure to clarity what she is seeking through the issuance of

these subpoenas mandates that this Court quash the subpoenas sent to Carol Spizzirri and

Shahna G. Monge by defendant.

WHEREFORE. the People of the State ofIllinois respectfully request that thi s Honorable Court

quash any and all subpoenas, known and unknown, issued by defendant to Carol Spizzirri and Shalma

G. Monge requiring their attendance on or about October 9, 20 12.

Respectfully submitted,

ANITA ALVAREZ State's Attorney of Cook County

Robert Podlasek, Assistant State's Attorney 3