SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION - FELONY BRANCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHRISTOPHER AKERICH,
RICHARD ALLEN,
WILLIAM AMANN-HOWISON,
MICHAEL BASILLAS,
JOSHHUA BETLEY,
JEREMY BINGHAM,
MADISON BROOMER,
SAMIR BUTT,
AARON CANTU,
JAMES CROMBIE,
CHRISTOPHER DELLACAMERA,
KATHERINE DUNLEAVY,
EMMA ENGLE,
ELLA FASSLER,
DANIEL FILSTEIN,
LORI FREYE,
TRENT FULTON,
ALEXANDRA GEDRA,
JOSEPH GORE,
IAN GRANT,
ANASTASIYA GRISHKEVICH,
ANNA HARJUNG,
SEAN HENDLEY,
SAUL JAFFE,
DANIEL KAUFMAN,
ALEXANDRA KRALES,
ALVARO ORTIZ-VAZQUEZ,
AVERY PITTMAN,
DANIEL RENGEL,
JUDAH RUBIN,
REBEKAH SCHILLER,
ERIC SCHIMMEL,
AARON SCHOEN,
JEREMEIAH SELLERS,
RAGHAV SHARMA,
SARAH SMITHSON,
NOLLE SMOOT,
SYDNIE STOCKS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Criminal Case Nos. 2017 CF2 1160
2017 CF2 1155
2017 CF2 1204
2017 CF2 1334
2017 CF2 1375
2017 CF2 1251
2017 CF2 1275
2017 CF2 1299
2017 CF2 1304
2017 CF2 1339
2017 CF2 1205
2017 CF2 1194
2017 CF2 1180
2017 CF2 1198
2017 CF2 1271
2017 CF2 1173
2017 CF2 1301
2017 CF2 1289
2017 CF2 1361
2017 CF2 1307
2017 CF2 1359
2017 CF2 1382
2017 CF2 1228
2017 CF2 1162
2017 CF2 1175
2017 CF2 1232
2017 CF2 1309
2017 CF2 1207
2017 CF2 1348
2017 CF2 1220
2017 CF2 1186
2017 CF2 1261
2017 CF2 1279
2017 CF2 1229
2017 CF2 1371
2017 CF2 1347
2017 CF2 1182
2017 CF2 1313
2017 CF2 1365
2017 CF2 1200
2017 CF2 1203
2017 CF2 1270
1

 

 ANDREW SWITZER,
MASSEY THOMAS,
CHRISTIAN VALENCIA,
NICHOLAS WEBSTER,
OLIVER WEILEIN,
LUCAS WOODEN, and
TAYLOR ZARKIN

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

2017 CF2 1344
2017 CF2 1258
2017 CF2 1323
Judge Lynn Leibovitz
Status Hearing: 10/27/2017

GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE REGARDING CELL PHONE EVIDENCE
The United States, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia, respectfully submits this notice regarding cell phone or media device data for the
above-captioned defendants.
Pursuant to the Court’s order, on or about August 25, 2017, the government disclosed to
individual defense counsel all data, if any, obtained from a search of their respective client’s cell
phones or media devices. The government further identified for each counsel the types of data
from their client’s phone that it believes should be produced as part of discovery in this case. To
aid the Court’s consideration of this issue, the government hereby submits this summary of the
type of cell phone or media device data obtained, the government’s identification of the categories
of data that it may seek to use at trial, and the categories of information it believes should be
produced to all counsel under Rule 16 and/or Brady:1
1. Defendants Akerich, Fassler, Freye, Krales, Rubin, Sellers, Sharma, and Wooden:
No cell phone was seized as evidence or searched.
2. Defendant Zarkin: A search of this defendant’s cell phone was attempted, but no data
could be obtained.

                                                            
1
 During a hearing on July 21, 2017 for other defendants, the Court refined the government’s descriptions
of the categories of data/information subject to disclosure. The categories of data/information subject to
disclosure was further limited during a hearing on August 4, 2017, after some counsel objected to the
scope of certain non-content proposed disclosures. The government has incorporated the Court’s
refinements in this pleading to reflect the current state of proposed disclosures.
 
2
 

 3. Defendant Cantu: A search of this defendant’s cell phone was attempted, but as this
time, no data has been obtained. The government has advised defense counsel that
additional efforts are being made to obtain data from this phone and the government
will promptly disclose to counsel any and all data obtained if these efforts are
successful.
4. Defendants Amann-Howison, Basillas, Betley, Crombie, Engle, Gedra, Gore,
Grant, Jaffe, Kaufman, Pittman, Rengel, Smithson, Stocks, Valencia, and
Weilein: For these defendants, the cell phone recovered was encrypted and only
limited information could be obtained during the search. The entirety of that
information is contained in a short data report which identifies the phone number
associated with the cell phone and limited other information about the phone itself. It
is the government’s position that the entirety of the data report should be produced to
all counsel. For each defendant, the government may seek to introduce at trial evidence
the defendant’s cell phone number, which is contained in the data report. The
government also believes that this information should be produced to all counsel as
potential Brady evidence to the extent other counsel intend to make use of the existence
(or lack) of the defendant’s number in another defendant’s cell phone.
5. Defendant Butt: Defendant Butt had a cell phone that was not encrypted but contained
a limited amount of data, and reflected that a number of files had been deleted. None
of the data contained in the phone appears to capture or discuss the events before,
during, or after the riot on January 20, 2017, nor do they appear to meet any of the other
criteria set forth in paragraph 7 below. The government does not believe any of the
data found on the cell phone should be disclosed under Rule 16 or Brady.

3
 

 6. Defendant Grant’s Go-Pro Device: Defendant McDonald had a mass media storage
device (GoPro device) that captured images and videos. The government believes that
disclosure of all images and videos dated January 20, 2017 should be disclosed.2 None
of the images or videos that fall within this limited timeframe appear to be of a highly
personal or private nature, and the videos/images taken on January 20, 2017 capture
relevant footage before, during, and after the riot.
7. Defendants Allen, Bingham, Broomer, Dellacamera, Dunleavy, Filstein, Fulton,
Grishkevich, Harjung, Hendley, Ortiz-Vazquez, Schiller, Schimmel, Schoen,
Smoot, Switzer, Thomas (Massey), Webster, and certain other co-defendants
with unencrypted phones: For these defendants (and certain other co-defendants
who are not scheduled for a status hearing on October 27, 2017, a cell phone was
recovered, was not encrypted, and the government was able to obtain a large amount
of data during the search of the phone. Pursuant to the Court’s rulings during prior
hearings, the government understands that the following types of information from
the cell phones should be disclosed under Rule 16, or as Brady information:
(1) The number associated with the cell phone;
(2) The total number of calls, chat messages, emails, SMS and MMS
communications in the phone;
(3) Website search history and website history relating to the following:
attending, preparing for, or participating in the black bloc, DisruptJ20
events, or other events on January 20, 2017 (content);
(4) All communications (call detail records, SMS/MMS messages, emails,
chats or other messaging applications) relating to the following:
                                                            
2

The report of the data seized from the Go-Pro reflects that the images and videos were “created” on 1/2/2015,
however, the images and videos plainly capture events on January 20, 2017 immediately before, during, and after
the riot.

4
 

 attending, preparing for, or participating in the black bloc, DisruptJ20
events, or other events on January 20, 2017, to include
communications regarding the defendant’s arrest on that date
(content);
(5) All images or videos taken on January 20, 2017, with redactions (if
needed) of highly sensitive material (content);
(6) All images or videos relating to the following: attending, preparing for,
or participating in the black bloc, DisruptJ20 events, or other events on
January 20, 2017, (content);
(7) All images and videos of other defendants, with redactions (if needed)
of highly sensitive material (content);
(8) All SMS/MMS messages involving communications with any other
defendant, with redactions (if needed) of highly sensitive material
(content);
(9) All emails involving communications with any other defendant, with
redactions (if needed) of highly sensitive material (content);
(10)

All chats or other messaging applications involving

communications with other defendants, with redactions (if needed) of
highly sensitive material (content);
Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
United States Attorney
/s/ Jennifer A. Kerkhoff
JENNIFER A. KERKHOFF
Assistant United States Attorney

5
 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by electronic mail on the
defendants’ attorneys on this 26th day of October 2017.

/s/ Jennifer A. Kerkhoff
JENNIFER A. KERKHOFF
Assistant United States Attorney

6