Background
Kevin Scott Leonard was charged with six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving three complainants who alleged he sexually assaulted them more than 25 years earlier, when they were all under 13 years old. The complainants voluntarily surrendered their cellular phones to the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department, which extracted the data and searched it for communications about the case. Leonard moved to compel discovery of the complainants’ complete cellular phone data and one complainant’s therapy records, arguing he was entitled to these materials under Brady v. Maryland, the Michigan Rules of Court (MCR 6.201), and his constitutional right to present a defense. The trial court denied both motions, reasoning that the Fourth Amendment protections afforded criminal defendants should similarly protect crime victims’ privacy interests and prevent a chilling effect on crime reporting.
Leonard appealed by leave granted. He argued that the Brady doctrine and MCR 6.201 entitled him to the full extracted cellular phone data, and that he had demonstrated a good-faith belief grounded in articulable facts justifying in camera review of the therapy records.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s substantive rulings but remanded for further proceedings. On the cellular phone data, the court held that while Brady and MCR 6.201 require disclosure of certain materials—such as text messages discussing the case with potential impeachment value—a defendant is not automatically entitled to the entirety of a complainant’s cellular phone data. The court reasoned that cell phones contain vast amounts of highly sensitive, intimate information and have heightened privacy interests. However, the court established a procedure to balance competing rights: any trial court examination of the complainants’ phone data must first be conducted in camera (in private judicial review), the complainants must be given an opportunity to testify or discuss the “least intrusive method” for identifying potentially relevant material, and only material that is properly subject to disclosure under Brady, the Constitution, or court rules may be provided to the defendant.
On the therapy records, the court affirmed the denial because Leonard failed to meet the threshold showing required under People v. Stanaway and MCR 6.201(C)(2). The court found that Leonard’s request was essentially a fishing expedition—he could not identify any specific articulable fact indicating the therapy records contained information necessary to his defense. The complainant’s testimony revealed he had only discussed the alleged assaults with family and police, not with his therapist, making the records speculative at best.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants have no automatic right to complete cellular phone data of complainants merely because police possess it; Brady and court rules do not extend that far.
- In camera review is the constitutionally appropriate mechanism to identify discoverable materials while protecting victims’ heightened privacy interests in cell phones.
- Complainants have a right to be heard about the least intrusive method of searching their phone data, striking a balance between the defendant’s due process right to a defense and the victim’s privacy rights.
- Requests for privileged records (such as therapy notes) require more than generalized assertions; a defendant must demonstrate a good-faith belief grounded in specific, articulable facts that the records likely contain material evidence necessary to the defense.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses a significant gap in Michigan law by establishing procedures for handling conflicts between a criminal defendant’s discovery rights and a crime victim’s privacy interests in the digital age. Cell phones now contain intimate personal information once kept in homes or not recorded at all—financial records, medical data, location history, communications with family and mental health providers—making blanket disclosure orders potentially devastating to victims’ privacy. The court’s framework, adopted from decisions in Minnesota and Texas, ensures defendants can access material evidence necessary for their defense while preventing harassment through unfettered “fishing expeditions” into victims’ private digital lives.
For practitioners, the decision clarifies that trial courts should conduct in camera review of cellular phone data before disclosure, must afford victims input on search methodology, and should require defendants seeking privileged records to meet a meaningful threshold rather than rely on speculation. This approach is likely to influence how Michigan courts handle similar discovery disputes in sexual assault and other sensitive cases involving victims’ personal data.