The Delaware Department of Justice announced today that it has re-evaluated the
evidence in the criminal case against defendant Loyer Braden in the light of information that has been
learned during the week of May 18th. It has concluded that even if this case were to be set for trial, the
State would not have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. Therefore, the State has not
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court decision dismissing all charges in the case, and
the State will not be filing an appeal from this ruling.

The Superior Court dismissed the Murder 2nd Degree indictment in State v. Loyer Braden, on
May 19, 2009. The State had in its possession a recorded witness interview which would have been
helpful to the defense, but which was not turned over to the defense until April 8, 2009. The trial was
at that time scheduled to begin on April 20, 2009. The witness could not be located for that trial date,
the trial was continued, and the witness was not subsequently located. The witness had not been
located as of May 19, 2009.

The sequence of events in this case is as follows:
In the early morning hours of Friday, September 21, 2007, a group of about nine students was
walking on the Delaware State University campus. Without warning, multiple shots rang out
from a darkened location off to the side and a good distance away. Two individuals were hit.
Two police departments conducted the investigation that followed.
On September 24, 2007 the police arrested Loyer Braden for Attempted Murder 1st Degree and
other charges.

On September 25, 2007 a police officer recorded an interview with a witness who was a part of
the group of nine students. The interview lasted about eighteen minutes. The witness stated
that he did not see the shooter. He said that he did not think that Braden was the shooter,
because Braden was wearing a black t-shirt that night, and he had seen two people wearing
white t-shirts running from where the shots had come from. He also said that other people were
telling him that the shooter was a guy who sold CDs from a black car. No one wrote a report
mentioning this witness or the substance of the recorded interview.

On October 23, 2007, one of the two victims died as a result of being shot.
On October 29, 2007, the two police departments conducted an “intake” with a prosecutor and
turned over about 20 recorded interviews, including that of the witness referenced above.
Additional recorded interviews were also turned over to the Delaware Department of Justice at
other times. In all, about 28 recorded interviews lasting about 18 ½ hours were turned over. Most of the interviews – but not those of this witness and four others – were described in the police reports. No one from the Delaware Department of Justice had listened to the witness interview referenced above until the weekend of April 4, 2009, at which time the trial was scheduled for April 20, 2009. On April 8, 2009, the witness interview was produced to defense counsel, along with police reports and nine other recorded interviews. When it became apparent that the witness referenced above was not going to be located in time to testify at trial, the prosecutors offered to allow the recorded interview into evidence. The Superior Court delayed the trial so that the witness could be found. He was not located. The witness lives in Washington, DC. At all times, the Delaware Department of Justice and the police had what had been his home address in 2007. The Delaware Department of Justice relied upon contacts the Dover police had with Washington, DC police to find the witness. The Washington, DC police reported that they had gone to the home and that it was a “bad” address. After the Superior Court dismissed the case, the Washington, DC police further investigated and discovered that the witness was living at what they had earlier reported as a “bad” address.

The Superior Court was correct that the witness interview referenced above would have been helpful to the defense and that this witness, if produced in court, could testify favorably to the defense. The witness statement was that he did not observe who did the shooting; but only that he did not believe that the defendant did so because he was wearing a black shirt and because of what he heard from other students on campus.

In summary, no one at the Delaware Department of Justice intentionally withheld any evidence from the defense. When it was discovered that the Delaware Department of Justice had the witness statement it was promptly produced. When it was learned that the witness who was necessary to introduce that evidence could not be located the Delaware Department of Justice offered to allow the statement taken to be introduced as evidence even without the witness being present. At no time did the Delaware Department of Justice try to deny the defendant a fair trial.
# # #

The Delaware Attorney General’s office announced that children who witness domestic
violence or are abandoned by their parents will now receive greater protections under state law.
Legislation that enacted these enhanced statutes was signed into law by Governor Markell today during
an afternoon ceremony in Dover.

Patricia Dailey Lewis, Director of the Attorney General’s Family Division, applauded
Governor Markell for signing Senate Bill 33 and Senate Bill 32 into law, as well as members of the
General Assembly for their overwhelming support of the legislation. “These laws protect children who
cannot otherwise protect themselves. The new broader definition of a domestic violence witness
recognizes that children are victims, whether they see domestic violence or hear it while hiding under
the bed or crouching in the closet. Delaware’s stronger child abandonment law now holds parents who
abandon their children criminally responsible.”

Senate Bill 33 expands the definition of a domestic violence witness to include the phrase “by
sight or sound” when determining whether a child was a witness to an act of domestic violence. Under
this new law, a child that hears but not necessarily sees an act of domestic violence is a legal witness to
that act.

Under previous state law, abandoning a child under 16 years of age was a misdemeanor offense
and abandoning a child 16 years of age and older was not a criminal offense. Senate Bill 32
strengthens this law by making abandonment of a child 14 years of age and younger a class E felony
and abandonment of a child older than 14 years of age a class F felony. Moreover, because child
abandonment is now a felony-level offense, a conviction on this charge is now grounds for the
termination of parental rights.

Senate Bill 33 and Senate Bill 32 unanimously passed both houses of the General Assembly
earlier this year. The Attorney General’s office recognized State Senator Patricia Blevins and
Representative Melanie George Marshall for their leadership in sponsoring this legislation.
# # #

The Delaware Attorney General’s office today announced it has reached a
settlement with the pharmacy company Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare”) to resolves allegations that the
company violated state and federal law by switching the dosage strengths and forms of certain
medications used by Medicaid patients. As a result of this settlement, Omnicare will pay $38,182 to
the Delaware Medicaid program and will pay a $76,365 penalty to the state’s General Fund.
“We are holding this company accountable for overcharging the Medicaid program as a result
of drug switches that it initiated,” said Timothy Mullaney, Director of the Attorney General’s Fraud
and Consumer Protection Division. “The Attorney General’s Office will continue to stand up for
taxpayers by identifying and weeding out Medicaid fraud.”

From April 1, 2000 through December 31, 2005 Omnicare used a “therapeutic interchange
program” to aggressively switch patients from brand-name drugs to generic drugs and also switched
various forms and strengths of drugs. One stated purpose of the therapeutic interchange program was
to lower costs for third-party payers, including Medicaid. However, the Attorney General’s Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit investigation revealed that as a result of some of these switches the Delaware
Medicaid program actually paid more for certain drugs. Specific examples include patient switches by
Omnicare:

? from 150 mg and 300 mg ranitidine (generic Zantac) tablets to the equivalent capsules, which
caused Medicaid to pay a higher price.
? from 10 mg and 20 mg fluoxetine (generic Prozac) capsules to the equivalent tablets, which
caused Medicaid to pay a higher price.
? from 15 mg buspirone (generic Buspar) dosage strength to 7.5 mg dosages, which caused
Medicaid to pay a higher price.

Two whistleblowers contributed to the discovery of these violations by Omnicare. This case
was prosecuted by Deputy Attorney General Daniel Miller, Director of the Attorney General’s
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The Attorney General’s office encourages anyone who may know of
possible Medicaid Fraud to call and report it to the Delaware Medicaid Fraud Control Hotline at
(302)577-5000.
# # #

In an effort to bring public attention to fraudulent charitable solicitors who
claim to help police, firefighters, and veterans and to report charity fraud enforcement action already
underway, the Delaware Attorney General’s office joined the Federal Trade Commission and law
enforcement officials in other states in announcing Operation False Charity. As part of today’s
announcement, federal authorities, 48 states, and the District of Columbia reported 76 enforcement
actions against fundraising companies, nonprofits, and individuals nationwide and highlighted
education materials to help recognize and avoid charitable solicitation fraud.

“We are determined to take action against charities fraud in Delaware to ensure that peoples’
donations find their way to intended causes and to protect legitimate charities across our state,” said
Timothy Mullaney, Director of the Attorney General’s Fraud and Consumer Protection Division.

Delaware also noted its own action to combat charities fraud. Michael Metzler (age 36 of
Philadelphia, PA) was indicted on December 22, 2008 on 6 felony counts of theft by false pretenses
and false promise. Delaware’s indictment alleges that Metzler, who was associated with the
organization “Disabled Firefighters Association”, used his affiliation with that organization to steal
$20,000 from Delaware residents. He has not been arrested on these charges and a warrant for his
arrest remains active. Anyone with information about Metzler’s whereabouts is encouraged to contact
Investigator Bill Prettyman at the Delaware Attorney General’s office at (302) 577-8600.

Today the FTC issued a new consumer alert – Supporting the Troops: When Charities Solicit
Donations on Behalf of Vets and Military Families – providing information about charities that solicit
donations on behalf of veterans and military families. The alert offers tips to help consumers ensure
that their donations go to a legitimate charity. It cautions that while many legitimate charities solicit
donations to support military veterans, not all charities are legitimate. Some are operators whose only
purpose is to make money for themselves. Others are paid fundraisers whose fees can use up
significant portions of a donation.

Details from the Federal Trade Commission about Operation False Charity can be found at
www.ftc.gov/charityfraud and at www.ftc.gov/donaciones for information in Spanish.
More information about charities fraud in Delaware can be found on the Attorney General’s
website at www.attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/consumers.
# # #

The Delaware Attorney General’s Office announced today that it is joining the
federal government, 14 states, and the District of Columbia in two whistleblower lawsuits in federal
district court against the drug manufacturer Wyeth. The suits allege that Wyeth knowingly failed to
report accurate pricing for its drugs Protonix Oral and Protonix IV and avoided paying hundreds of
millions of dollars in rebates due to the Medicaid Program.

Congress created the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program in order to ensure that Medicaid received
the benefit of the same discounts offered by drug manufacturers to large commercial customers in the
marketplace. Under the program, drug manufacturers of branded drugs are required to report certain
drug pricing information to the government, including the “Best Price” offered for their drugs, and to
pay rebates to state Medicaid programs based on those reported prices. The Medicaid Program is one
of the largest purchasers of drugs in the United States and the nation’s provider of health insurance to
the poor and the disabled.

Between 2000 and 2006, Wyeth offered steep discounts to thousands of hospitals nationwide
for Protonix Oral and Protonix IV, which belong to a class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors
and are used to suppress stomach acid. These discounts were offered to hospitals under a bundled
pricing arrangement known as the Protonix Performance Agreement in order to gain access to the
lucrative retail outpatient market. Under the Protonix Performance Agreement, hospitals that placed
both products on their formularies and attained certain market share requirements were entitled to up to
a 94% discount off the list price of Protonix Oral and up to 80% off the list price of Protonix IV.

Although Wyeth was required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to determine the effective
prices paid by hospitals under this arrangement and to pass along the lowest prices to state Medicaid
programs, it failed to do so and therefore avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Medicaid in
rebates.

The Delaware Medicaid Fraud Control Unit played a significant role in the investigation of the
allegations, including subpoenaing hundreds of thousands of documents from Wyeth and coordinating
the review of those documents. Delawareans are urged to report suspected Medicaid fraud to the
Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit at (302) 577-5000.
# # #