State of Tennessee v. Alexander Johnson and Michael F. Williams
538 S.W.3d 32
Tenn. Crim. App.2017Background
- Two defendants (Johnson; Williams) indicted for aggravated rape; defense subpoenaed social‑media and cellphone content from four State witnesses and from service providers (AT&T, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Yik Yak).
- Trial court initially authorized pretrial subpoenas; service providers objected citing the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and advised defendants to obtain content from account holders.
- Defendants then subpoenaed the four witnesses to produce native data and handsets; compliance was partial and contested; State moved to quash subpoenas to both witnesses and providers.
- Trial court granted State’s motion to quash the subpoenas to the witnesses (ruling the materials were witness statements, and subpoenas oppressive) but denied the State’s motion as to providers (finding providers could challenge directly).
- Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held the State lacked standing to quash any subpoenas; reversed quash of witness subpoenas and affirmed denial as to providers; addressed merits: defendants entitled to limited pretrial production from witnesses under Nixon but could not obtain content from providers under the SCA because defendants are not "governmental entities."
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the State have standing to move to quash subpoenas issued to witnesses and service providers? | State: has interest in protecting witnesses, preventing delay, chilling rape reporting; may proxy victim interests. | Defendants: State lacks "personal right, privilege, or proprietary interest" in subpoenaed materials; no standing. | State lacks standing to challenge subpoenas to witnesses or providers; trial court's finding of State standing to quash witnesses reversed; finding re: providers affirmed. |
| Do the subpoenas to witnesses seek "statements of witnesses" barred from Rule 17 and Rule 26.2? | State: communications are witness statements and thus not discoverable via Rule 17. | Defendants: communications not in State's possession; Rule 26.2 inapplicable; Rule 17 is proper. | Communications were not barred by Rule 17/26.2 because they were not in State's possession and do not fit Rule 26.2's definition; Rule 17 may reach such materials if Nixon factors met. |
| Were the subpoenas to the witnesses unreasonable or oppressive under Rule 17? | State: subpoenas broad, burdensome, and oppressive for witnesses. | Defendants: subpoenas timely, necessary, and reasonable; any technical burden could be assisted. | Trial court's oppressive finding reversed; record showed only modest compliance burdens insufficient to quash; subpoenas were overbroad in scope/timeframe and should be narrowed. |
| Can defendants obtain account content from service providers via Rule 17 / SCA? | State/providers: SCA restricts disclosure of content; providers cannot release contents to defendants absent SCA procedures. | Defendants: Rule 17 subpoenas to providers valid; content necessary for defense. | Defendants cannot compel providers to produce content under Rule 17 because SCA requires governmental‑entity process (warrant or §2703(d) order) and defendants are not "governmental entities." Defendants may obtain relevant content directly from witnesses (subject to Nixon and scope limits). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (pretrial subpoena duces tecum standards: relevance, specificity, admissibility, and necessity)
- State v. Harrison, 270 S.W.3d 21 (Tenn. 2008) (standing to challenge third‑party subpoenas requires a legally protectable interest)
- United States v. Raineri, 670 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1982) (governmental standing to quash third‑party subpoenas to protect witnesses and trial integrity)
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214 (1951) (Rule 17 purpose: expedite trial by pretrial inspection)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (modern cell phones contain extensive private data; warrant required to search phone contents incident to arrest)
- Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016) (SCA "pyramidal" framework: warrants required for recent ECS content; §2703(d)/notice mechanics for other content)
- United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (limits on prosecution acting as proxy for witness interests; standing analysis)