U.S. v. Julius

In prosecution on arson charges arising out of fire damages to building where defendant’s former girlfriend resided, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in failing to qualify forensic examiner and ATF agent before allowing them to testify as to process of extracting data from defendant’s cellphone. Defendant conceded that he could not show that forensic examiner and ATF agent were unqualified to give challenged testimony, and Ct. of Appeals noted that other circuits have held that testimony about extracting data from cellphone is not expert testimony. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in denying defendant opportunity to cross-examine ATF agent about location data obtained through defendant’s cellphone extraction, where: (1) Dist. Ct. failed to explain basis for its lack of foundation ruling when sustaining govt.’s objection to defendant’s cross-examination of ATF agent; and (2) Dist. Ct. made its ruling off record during sidebar without making contemporaneous record of sidebar discussion. However, any error was harmless, where other evidence, including defendant’s incriminating text messages to his girlfriend on evening of arson, and fact that police found defendant hiding under nearby car with gasoline on his shoes and socks and lighter in his pocket, overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt.