DFE of the victim's cellphone

Friday, April 3, 2026
 
Order Granting Petition for Review
 
No. 26-0062/AR. U.S. v. Brady T. Wicks. CCA 20230171. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
 
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF THE LOGICAL EXTRACTION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S CELLPHONE LOCATED IN A CID EVIDENCE LOCKER.
 
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Braum at AFCCA

​Briefs at CAAF: Appellant, Appellee, Reply

---

A military judge sitting at a general court-martial at Fort Drum convicted First Lieutenant Brady T. Wicks of one specification of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, contrary to his pleas. The judge acquitted him of a second sexual assault specification and one domestic violence specification. The court sentenced Wicks to dismissal from the service and three days of confinement.
On appeal to ACCA, Wicks one assignment of error: the military judge wrongly denied his motion to compel discovery of the full logical extraction of the victim's cell phone, which CID held in an evidence locker. The victim had consented only to a search of text messages between herself and Wicks. Because CID's Cellebrite software at the time could not perform a targeted extraction, agents extracted the phone's entire contents but limited their review to the authorized text messages.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals, affirmed. The court held that the military judge did not abuse his discretion for several reasons: the full extraction never entered the government's possession, custody, or control for discovery purposes because the victim only granted limited consent; the victim retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the remaining phone data under the Fourth Amendment; the defense failed to show the full extraction would provide relevant evidence that could impeach any witness; and adequate substitutes — including the text messages and victim-provided screenshots — already existed in the record. Even assuming the judge erred, the court found no prejudice under a harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

Seems CAAF could affirm ACCA and avoid the harder questions, because

(2) The defense had not met its burden under R.C.M. 701(a)(6) to show that the provision of the full extraction would provide any evidence that would adversely affect the credibility of the victim.

(4) The defense had not established that the remaining data on the cell phone was relevant and necessary. Many of the text message chains provided by the victim pre-dated the charged offense; they did not establish a motive to fabricate, and the text messages did not confirm the sexual acts themselves.
(5) The defense argument on the full extraction being subject to compulsory process fell short because the defense could not establish any evidence that the full extraction would be of such central importance to the defense and that no adequate substitute existed.

No harm, no foul.