Bilecki Challenges Distribution Allegation in West Point Case; Plea Resolves Six Possession Specifications

Bilecki Challenges Distribution Allegation in West Point Case; Plea Resolves Six Possession Specifications

October 2022

United States Military Academy, West Point, New York

Army Cadet

Allegations: UCMJ Article 134 Wrongful Possession of Child Pornography (6 specifications); UCMJ Article 134 Wrongful Distribution of Child Pornography (1 specification)

Facts

This was a West Point cadet charged at general court martial with seven Article 134 child pornography specifications spanning four devices and two cloud storage accounts. The distribution allegation raised additional sentencing and registration concerns beyond the possession charges. This was a court-martial under the UCMJ.

The investigation began with NCMEC CyberTipline reports and federal and state reporting from Microsoft OneDrive, Google, and Discord. Devices were seized at West Point in March 2021, including a solid state drive, a cellular phone, an iPad, and a Samsung storage drive. Charges were preferred in March 2022. The case was referred to general court martial in April 2022.

The case stipulated to 21,994 images and videos of suspected child pornography across the four devices and two cloud accounts, of which 1,218 images and 7 videos were confirmed by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children as known child pornography.

Our client retained Bilecki pre-preferral. Notice of Representation went in June 2021.

Bilecki brought in digital forensic examiner William Oettinger to examine the electronic evidence. The defense challenged whether the Discord files established a deliberate act of distribution or reflected the application’s handling of locally stored files. That distinction gave Tim a specific issue to press in negotiating the distribution specification. We also prepared the sentencing case with forensic psychiatrist COL Christopher Perry and sought forensic psychology consultation from Dr. Gabriel Holguin.

The plea agreement was signed in late summer 2022. Our client pleaded guilty to six possession specifications, with agreed changes to the image counts. He did not plead guilty to the distribution specification, which was dismissed under the agreement. The case proceeded to sentencing on possession only.

On the surviving possession specifications, the plea was guilty by exceptions and substitutions. On Specifications 1, 4, and 7, the alleged minimum image counts of "25 or more" or "20 or more" were excepted and substituted with "5 or more." On Specification 5 (iPad), the same numeric reduction.

The plea agreement capped confinement at 18 months minimum and 48 months maximum, all to be served concurrently across the six possession specifications.

Tim Bilecki traveled to West Point, New York for the trial. Trial proceeded military judge alone. Defense forensic psychiatrist COL Christopher Perry testified at sentencing in extenuation and mitigation.

The adjudged sentence was a reprimand, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 48 months confinement on each specification running concurrently, and a dismissal.

The agreement removed the distribution specification, but the six possession convictions still carried serious consequences. The judge imposed forty-eight months of concurrent confinement, a dismissal, a reprimand, and total forfeitures. The possession convictions also carried sex-offender-registration consequences.

Result: Distribution specification dismissed. Possession image count thresholds reduced to "5 or more" by plea. 48 months concurrent confinement, dismissal, reprimand, total forfeitures.

---

FAQ

Q: Why did the defense examine the Discord evidence separately from possession?
Finding files on a device does not, by itself, establish how they got there or whether the user sent them to someone else. Bilecki used the forensic review to challenge the distribution allegation. The agreement removed that specification, while our client pleaded guilty to six possession specifications.

Q: What did the sentence agreement protect?
The agreement required the confinement terms to run concurrently and limited confinement to 48 months. The judge imposed that maximum, along with a dismissal, total forfeitures and a reprimand. The negotiated changes to the image counts narrowed the guilty pleas; they did not eliminate the seriousness of the admitted material or the registration consequences of the possession convictions.