Which news organizations have obtained or published court exhibits from USA v. Riley?
Executive summary
No news organizations can be definitively identified from the supplied reporting as having obtained or published court exhibits from a case styled "USA v. Riley"; the available documents focus overwhelmingly on Riley v. California and on general court-document access practices, not on press possession of exhibits in a USA v. Riley matter [1] [2] [3]. Reporting provided does include examples of courts publishing exhibits and procedural guides for journalists, but it contains no direct evidence that any named news outlet obtained or published exhibits from a USA v. Riley docket [4] [3].
1. What the sources actually cover: Riley v. California and court-access rules, not a press scoop on “USA v. Riley”
The assembled sources are centered on the Supreme Court decision Riley v. California and related commentary about warrantless cell‑phone searches and amici advocacy, including summaries on Justia, EFF materials and SCOTUSblog, none of which report on media outlets publishing trial exhibits for a criminal case styled USA v. Riley [2] [5] [6]. The docket item in the collection that nominally references “USA v. RILEY” appears to be an automated PACER capture entry and contains no accompanying reporting about media access to exhibits [7]. Because the materials do not connect a specific news organization to specific posted or leaked exhibits in a USA v. Riley matter, there is no factual basis in these sources to assert that any outlet has done so.
2. Where exhibits sometimes appear — and why that matters for verification
Federal courts sometimes post trial exhibits online and have in at least one historic instance made an entire exhibit set public through a court-hosted page, a practice the Eastern District of Virginia announced when it posted all trial exhibits in a prior criminal case, an action the court described as the first time a federal court provided access to all exhibits online [4]. The U.S. Courts’ journalist guide notes that for high‑interest cases some courts create “Cases of Interest” pages and may publish docket entries, orders and sometimes trial exhibits, which explains why reporters can occasionally cite court-hosted exhibit repositories rather than leaks from newsrooms [3]. Those two procedural realities show plausible routes by which exhibits could reach the public, but the supplied reporting contains no instance tying a specific news organization to exhibits from a case named USA v. Riley.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — limitations in the record
The reviewed snippets provide detailed legal history, case summaries and resources on accessing court documents but do not include investigative pieces, press releases, or bylines claiming custody or publication of exhibits from any USA v. Riley docket [1] [2] [5] [6]. Without sources that explicitly name news organizations and link them to particular exhibit files, any claim about which outlets obtained or published those exhibits would go beyond what the provided reporting supports; the present corpus simply lacks the required, specific sourcing [7] [3].
4. What a verifiable answer would require and where to look next
To answer the question with certainty requires primary evidence: either (a) a news story or newsroom statement that explicitly says “we obtained/published court exhibits in USA v. Riley” with links to the exhibits, or (b) a court-hosted exhibits index or PACER docket entry showing exhibits and a contemporaneous press citation; the U.S. Courts guide and the Eastern District of Virginia example indicate both pathways exist for public access to exhibits [3] [4]. Absent such corroborating items in the supplied materials, the correct, evidence‑based position is that the provided reporting does not identify any news organizations that have obtained or published court exhibits from a case called USA v. Riley.