[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
My name is Stephanie Bond.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
I represent the appellant Mr. Johnson in his pending appeal.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
I would hope and tend to reserve five minutes for rebuttal if possible.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Mr. Johnson made an affirmative request, an unambiguous affirmative request to have an attorney present when his devices were searched.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
These devices were 59 devices that contained his entire life.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
He testified at the evidentiary hearing that his quicken book quicken workbook program was on it that contained 25 years of his finances.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
He testified that there were over 80,000 photographs on his devices.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
He was a photographer by trade.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
That is how he made his living was by selling

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
and producing the photographs that were on those devices.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
He also, almost kind of more importantly, had security cameras throughout his house.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
Those security cameras were backed up, the footage

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
on those devices of everything happening in his house.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
Not just when the agents were searching his house, although those were definitely on there too, but previous and everything else that had happened on the footage cameras in his house.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
The government decided not to honor that request for two and a half years.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
What would that request have entailed?

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
What would that request have entailed?

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
I can understand, we know about lineups, lawyers there to observe what happens.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
Here we've got forensic analysis of a computer that apparently runs quietly for weeks, or in this case it wound up being months.

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
You propose to have a attorney sit there staring at the computer during that time?

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, if that's what he asked for.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
We're not in the business of saying whatever the defendant wants, defendant gets.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
Why is that something that's productive and an essential stage that it makes it important for the court to make sure that that request is granted?

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
I haven't figured that out yet.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
Okay, and I would submit that there are two specific reasons.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
First of all, we know that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment discusses evidence that can be used in a criminal prosecution.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
We know that that was what was happening in this case.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
You don't watch blood tests being conducted.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
That evidence gets used in prosecutions all the time, but you don't have somebody hanging around the lab all the time watching what happens with the blood tests.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, and I think there's a difference between whether a person makes an affirmative request for an attorney versus whether the law just presumes that an attorney can be present.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
We have certain circumstances where that's the case, where attorneys get to be present if a person affirmatively requests that.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
He affirmative requests that.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
I don't think that's the general rule.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
We don't automatically defend it whatever he wants.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
You have to tell us why it is that it's a critical step in the process, why it's useful to the system to have a lawyer sitting there while this forensic analysis is being run on these machines that occasionally may blink a light, but you don't really see a whole lot happening.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, I guess I would disagree in the sense that, you know, I haven't personally been at one of these types of things.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
I don't know how this happens.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
I think there's a lot of people that don't know how it happens because it's a very selfish critical step.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
You've got to tell us more than the defendant would like it to happen.

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
Well, you've got to explain to us why it's a critical step and to tell me that you don't know isn't a very satisfying answer.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, I'm just saying I personally don't know.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
Now, in Mr. Johnson's view,

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
Obviously, he had his life on these computers.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
There was a lot of personal information.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
He didn't ask to get a copy back, so I'm not sure that's all that important.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
But that doesn't matter, because that doesn't tell us why it is a critical step in the prosecution.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
The fact that he has all sorts of other stuff there doesn't negate the fact that he had stuff that resulted in not just the prosecution, but his conviction.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
What was it

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
that an attorney would have contributed to his defense during that forensic analysis.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
Well, obviously an attorney can make sure, first of all, that they're abiding by the parameters of the search warrant and that they're not looking at things that they're not allowed to look at.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
Now we've got the things have been seized.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
And so I don't understand the warrant thereafter limiting the examination or

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
that affecting the prosecution.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
This sounds like a generic complaint about invasion of privacy.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
That's a different issue.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
What is it that affects the prosecution?

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, it is, honestly, it is an invasion of privacy.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
And that's exactly why a warrant was necessary to seize the devices.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
And you've challenged questions, but I'm not sure there's really much of a challenge as to whether there was probable cause for the warrant.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
So once the warrant

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
has been executed and the devices seized and taken for examination, what is it the lawyer's supposed to do sitting there during that examination that makes that a critical stage to the prosecution?

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
Well, obviously making sure that they're not putting evidence on the devices, that they're not taking evidence or looking at evidence that they're not supposed to be looking at.

[00:05:47] Speaker 05:
How might a lawyer even be competent to do that?

[00:05:52] Speaker 05:
Doesn't this lead us to an easy next step that you're going to have to have your own forensic expert seated there and this is going to be conducted like a deposition now in which we're going to put objections on the record to every move that either a police officer or a forensic investigator is going to make?

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, I think that is the key argument.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
Maybe attorney would say, we needed an expert to do this.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
Personally, that's what I would do.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
But that expert's going to be testifying at the trial in this case.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
That expert will know what happened.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
That expert will know what the government did and didn't see, what the government did and didn't do.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
Those are all things that happen behind closed doors that we can only assume did or did not happen.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
with an expert sitting there knowing exactly what it is that the government is doing.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
That obviously helps in the testimony and the defense.

[00:06:44] Speaker 05:
So I feel like you have to ground on us, Counsel, because now I'm a little confused.

[00:06:48] Speaker 05:
So when you started, you talked about the 59 devices, and you mentioned the Quicken book, so that would have all of his financial information.

[00:06:54] Speaker 05:
The 80,000 photos apparently is unrelated to his charges.

[00:06:59] Speaker 05:
At least that was the inference I took, because he was a photographer.

[00:07:03] Speaker 05:
So what is it that you want the lawyer or your

[00:07:07] Speaker 05:
a lawyer plus your own forensic investigator to prevent them from looking at the Quicken books, to prevent them from examining the 80,000 photos that are on this device?

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
That is part of it.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
obviously to make sure that they do everything that they are allowed to legally and not anything that they're not allowed to do under the search warrant.

[00:07:33] Speaker 05:
So counsel, have you struck out an entirely new frontier here or is there some basis in other cases that would support this?

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Judge, I think this is a new frontier.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
I was unable to find it.

[00:07:46] Speaker 05:
And I appreciate that because it feels like a bold new frontier.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
And you know,

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
There are cases, obviously, that discuss the importance of having an attorney for purposes of due process before a criminal case is actually a part of that.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court has decided that.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
In United States versus White, they discussed that.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
This court has also decided that there are times that a person

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
gets an attorney under the due process clause in a civil deportation proceeding, materials regarding subpoenas, things that are critical stages of a case before the case is actually brought to the court.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
And why wouldn't it?

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
I mean, suppose you take it out of the digital context and you have a traditional warrant to just search a house for drugs, right?

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
Maybe there are drugs in the house.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
There are lots of non-drug things in the house in which the owner of the house is going to have an expectation of privacy.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
Do you think that, assuming, I guess, for this hypothetical to work, the defendant somehow or the homeowner has somehow become aware that the warrant is going to be executed.

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
But if he somehow does and asks to have a lawyer there, do you think there's a right to have a lawyer following the police around

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
you know, asking, you know, why are you opening that drawer?

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, your honor.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
I think that and that is exactly what I was going to discuss is the fact that, you know, this isn't anything different.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
But there's I mean, that I guess then the follow up question is that is a scenario that has existed or could have existed for 200 years.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
Is there lawyers falling around and say, don't open that drawer?

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
Is there any case that has ever recognized such a right?

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
Judge, I can't tell you off the top of my head if there is.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
I do know that I have been aware of attorneys being present when things are searched in a house and a search warrant.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
And yeah, usually search warrants are a surprise.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
And so that makes it a little more difficult for an attorney to get over there while they're searching the house.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
But definitely, I mean, I'm definitely aware that there have been cases where attorneys have been there.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
Now, whether an attorney interferes with the search.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
But you're telling us that they can say, don't open that drawer because we're going to protect privacy.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
That doesn't happen.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
No, I'm not.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
And I am not saying that, Your Honor.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
So if you took it that way, I apologize.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
I am not saying that.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
So let's move to our computer context.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
You're saying we need to protect his QuickBooks.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
But how is the attorney sitting there going to accomplish that?

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
And I'm not sure how being able to make sure, yeah, this is QuickBooks.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
It's not a folder that hides something else.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
is a critical step in the prosecution for which the reason we've recognized in some context and the lineup is the obvious potential parallel.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
But we don't say that for testing of blood samples or examination of fingerprints.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
And if you express concern about planting something, that's going to happen in blood tests.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
It could potentially happen all.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
But we don't, as a result, station a lawyer in the police lab.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
And so I'm having difficulty understanding is the basic standard is critical step.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
How is this critical step?

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
And how is the presence of a lawyer going to advance the process?

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, personally, if I were sitting there watching and the agent started to do something they wouldn't do, I would call and ask the judge for a hearing.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
The judge probably never know because

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
The lawyer, I mean, you got somebody sitting there with a machine running in the background from time to time, they type something on the keyboard or speak into something that records.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
I have a hard time understanding in practical terms.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
I mean, I've been a lawyer for a long time.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
I don't pretend to understand most of that stuff that happens.

[00:11:46] Speaker 02:
So it seems to me there's a disconnect here between what you're insisting due process requires and how

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
forensic analysis actually proceeds.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge, an attorney is meant to protect a person's rights, a person, an individual's rights.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
We never know exactly what's going to happen until it happens.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
When we have an attorney appointed on subpoena of documents, of course, that attorney is going to look over those things and he's going to say if something's wrong and then he's going to go to a judge.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
I mean, this isn't the type thing where we would allow an attorney to interfere

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
with the actual process.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
This would be something where an attorney would need to contact the judge and say, we've got a problem here.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Can we talk about this as to whether they're allowed to do this?

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
They're trying to do this.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
They're trying to do that.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
And a judge would decide that.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
But that's how a person's rights are protected.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, we have no idea what's going on.

[00:12:43] Speaker 05:
Do you know what kind of a program this was?

[00:12:45] Speaker 05:
Was this the Celebrite program?

[00:12:46] Speaker 05:
Is that what they used?

[00:12:48] Speaker 05:
Does the record tell us?

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
All I know is that they say it's proprietary software.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
It does not say.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
We were informed that a hard drive was made, a copy of the hard drive was made, and that it was proprietary software.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
You wanted to reserve some time?

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
You may.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
DeLorde?

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
My name is Carla Hodes DeLore representing the United States.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
I would first like to correct the record.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
Defense counsel says that the defendant made an ambiguous request for counsel at the time to search his computers.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
At the motion to suppress hearing, the defendant admitted that nowhere in his statement to law enforcement during his interrogation did he make a request.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
There's no request for counsel at that time.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
If there was any, it might have been off the record, but according to the transcript, there is no request for counsel.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Second of all, your judges are correct in that the search of his computers is not a critical stage in this case, so there was no Sixth Amendment right to an attorney at that time.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
If the defense, let me back up before I say that.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
As the agents testified in this case, they made a forensic copy of all of the defendant's digital devices, and these copies were available for the defendant to review at any time.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
If the defendant had a problem or an issue,

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
or a question about what happened during the search of these computers.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
The defense could have hired their own forensic examiner to look at the computers.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
It could have filed a

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
a motion challenging the authentication of the software used.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
None of that occurred here.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
And so there was no critical, there was no right to an attorney at this point because it was no critical stage.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
And the defendant cannot show prejudice because these devices were available for him to examine and he did not take advantage of that.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
Counsel, do we know what kind of a program was used?

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
I know that the e-mule software was what was at issue.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
That's what he was using.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
That was what he was using.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
What were you using?

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
I don't know if the search warrant specifies the software that was being used.

[00:15:18] Speaker 05:
And it didn't come out at trial?

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
I don't remember.

[00:15:21] Speaker 05:
So you don't know whether it was like, for example, Celebrite, which is commonly used by law enforcement.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I don't know.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
I'm more familiar with torrential downpour, but I did not see that reference to torrential downpour.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
I would have to review the search warrant to see if he states what that software was that was used.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
I apologize for, I don't remember that.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
Aside from the right to counsel,

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
issue that defense counsel raised, the evidence in this case was absolutely overwhelming.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
The defendant had over 140,000 images and 900 videos of child pornography on his computer.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
The defendant knew exactly what he was doing in this case.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
This was not a mistake.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
The defendant

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
installed the e-mail peer-to-peer file sharing software and once it was installed he changed the default settings to increase his download priority and minimize his sharing ability.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
The defendant searched for and received thousands upon thousands of files of child pornography and the titles indicated that these were

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
These were child pornography images.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
The defendant then had a system to where he processed all of these images.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
He would download them to his Dell Dimension 3000 computer.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
He would then use either one of two other computers to view and sort these images, and then he would save them on a Toshiba hard drive disk.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
So there is this was not a mistake at all.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
If the court does not have any further questions for me, I'm happy to answer anything.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
Otherwise, I will ask that you affirm his convictions and sentence.

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
Your honors, in respect to the request made for an attorney, I would first point out that at the evidentiary hearing that occurred on June 8th, 2023, the government did not present any evidence contesting anything that Mr. Johnson said at all.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
Mr. Johnson did say, and you do have the transcript, and I would refer you to the second excerpts of records, specifically page 68 and page 134, where he testified about his affirmative request that was not disputed

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
by the government.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
The agent did not come and testify saying no request was ever made of me.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
The only thing that the court had to consider and the only thing that this court has to consider is the testimony of Mr. Johnson because that is what the government decided to do.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
If there's not any other questions, everybody thank you.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
We thank both counsel for their arguments and the case is submitted.