Opinion ID: 6337291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Phone Extraction and Discovery

Text: On July 1, 2019, Patterson’s counsel sent a discovery request to the State.34 Counsel requested “[n]otice of . . . any and all displays the State intends to present to the finder of fact during . . . a witness’s testimony.”35 On October 28, 2019, the State responded to the request and filed a supplemental discovery response on March 3, 2020.36 The police had collected D.L.’s cell phone and extracted its contents.37 The police also collected and extracted data from Patterson’s phone. The extractions of D.L.’s phone and Patterson’s phone were made available for inspection at the beginning of the case. Closer to the trial, the State and defense counsel discussed a time for defense counsel to 31 A79. 32 A179-80. 33 A86, 232-34. 34 A9-11. 35 A10 at II.K. 36 A3 at D.I.15. 37 A228-29. The extraction also included all text messages, call history, contact list, and web searches on the phone. A231 at 45:8-9. It does not include information on apps unless such information is saved to the phone. See A232. 6 review that evidence.38 Patterson’s counsel reviewed the extraction at the New Castle County Police Department.39 Patterson’s counsel asserted that the review of the extracted material included over 9,000 images.40 Further, Patterson’s counsel acknowledged the State acted “appropriately” by not copying and transmitting the contents of the minor victim’s cell phone in discovery due to her age.41