When “Knowing Possession” Becomes the Decisive Issue: ACCA Sets Aside Guilty Plea in United States v. Douangdara

We at Cave & Freeburg read every new military appellate decision when it comes out. We do that to stay current, identify potential issues that might help you, and evaluate how each opinion can strengthen your case. Our goal is to use our experience and understanding of military law to help you decide whether we are the right firm to defend you.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent memorandum opinion in United States v. Douangdara offers an important reminder of what a guilty plea must establish—and how a seemingly simple admission can unravel when a military judge fails to probe the essential elements of an offense. The case demonstrates that even when an accused is willing to plead guilty, the government must still prove that the accused’s conduct met the legal definition of the charged offense. When that factual basis is missing, appellate courts will intervene.

This case matters because it highlights a recurring problem in child-pornography prosecutions under Article 134, UCMJ: military judges and trial counsel often gloss over the required element of “knowing and conscious” possession during the charged timeframe. When the record leaves room for doubt, the conviction risks collapse on appeal.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Specialist Jonathan P. Douangdara entered active duty years after downloading child pornography as a high-school student. Those same files remained on his phone when he arrived at Fort Benning. In March 2023, law enforcement learned that an IP address located on the installation had been used to upload five suspected images to a Google Drive account linked to the soldier. Investigators later seized his phone pursuant to a valid authorization and discovered files that matched the description. The government charged him with wrongful possession of child pornography “between on or about 8 October 2021 and on or about 20 March 2023.”

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

At trial, the military judge conducted a providence inquiry. Specialist Douangdara admitted that he had downloaded the images in high school and had forgotten they remained on his phone. He denied viewing them after that period. When the judge asked him why he still possessed the images, he answered, “Because I never deleted it, Your Honor.”

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

That exchange became the focal point of the appellate litigation.

The military judge ultimately accepted the plea and sentenced him to six months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Douangdara appealed, arguing that the judge failed to establish that his possession during the charged period was knowing and conscious.

ACCA agreed.

II. The Legal Standard for a Provident Plea

Under United States v. Inabinette, the military judge must ensure the accused provides an adequate factual basis to support each element of the offense. The judge abuses her discretion when she accepts a plea without resolving inconsistencies or without eliciting sufficient facts. “Mere conclusions of law,” the court noted, are insufficient.

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

For Article 134 child-pornography offenses, the government must prove that the accused knowingly possessed the images. The Manual for Courts-Martial requires that the possession be “knowing and conscious,” not accidental, forgotten, or purely residual.

This element is especially important in cases where the material was downloaded long before military service, where files may have migrated automatically, or where cloud-based services back up a device without a user’s awareness.

III. ACCA’s Analysis: A Substantial Basis to Question the Plea

A. The Court Found an Unresolved Factual Gap

The court focused on the massive time gap between when the soldier downloaded the files (early high school) and the charged time frame (2021–2023). Nothing in the inquiry clearly established that Douangdara knew the images remained on his phone during his time on active duty. His repeated statements that he had forgotten the images contradicted the required mental state.

The majority emphasized two key omissions:

The judge never explored the defenses of mistake or accident.
The stipulation of fact failed to establish how or by whom the images were uploaded to Google Drive.

Without that detail, the court concluded the record left open “a substantial basis” to question the plea.

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

B. Comparison to United States v. Haddock

The panel noted that this issue is not new. In Haddock, ACCA overturned a guilty plea where the accused had downloaded child pornography as a minor and later forgot those files existed. Even though the accused conceded that he would have remembered the subfolder if asked, the court still found the evidence insufficient to establish knowing possession years later.

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

Douangdara presented the same deficiencies, and ACCA applied the same remedy.

IV. The Concurring Opinion: A Warning About Stipulations in Child-Pornography Cases

Judge Murdough’s concurrence spotlights a recurring—and significant—problem: stipulations often recount the investigative history in meticulous detail while barely addressing the elements of the charged offense. That pattern appeared here.

The stipulation described the CyberTip, subpoenas, IP address tracing, and search authorization, but did not admit facts demonstrating the accused knowingly possessed the images during the charged period. Worse, the stipulation’s phrasing—“an IP address was used to upload” the files—used the passive voice, leaving open whether Douangdara himself performed the upload.

DOUANGDARA-20240115-MEMORANDUM …

This is a critical lesson for defense counsel and prosecutors alike. A stipulation should never rely on investigative narrative at the expense of the actual elements. When it does, the conviction becomes vulnerable.

V. What This Case Means for Service Members

1. Past Misconduct Does Not Automatically Prove Present Knowledge

Many service members discover decades-old files, automatic cloud backups, or remnants of digital content they believed long forgotten. Douangdara confirms that the government must prove knowing possession during the charged period, not merely that the images existed somewhere on the device.

2. A Guilty Plea Is Not Bulletproof

Even when a defendant pleads guilty, the military judge has an independent duty to test the factual basis. If the judge fails to do so, appellate courts can—and do—set aside convictions.

3. Digital-forensics complexity creates real defenses

Modern devices sync, upload, and back up data without a user’s active involvement. Where the evidence leaves open the possibility of automatic processes, the government must rule out mistake or accident. Douangdara reinforces the importance of raising those defenses.

VI. Why This Case Matters for Our Clients

At Cave & Freeburg, we regularly litigate cases involving digital-forensics evidence, cloud-based uploads, inadvertent possession, and the nuanced mental-state requirements of Article 134 offenses. Douangdara reinforces several arguments we frequently raise:

Knowledge must be proven contemporaneously with the charged period.
Automatic uploads and backups undermine the knowing-possession element.
Old downloads from adolescence do not constitute knowing possession years later.
A flawed stipulation can render the plea fatally defective.
The military judge must explore potential defenses, even during a guilty plea.

Most importantly, the case shows that even when the facts look bad at first glance, careful attention to the elements—and to digital-forensics realities—can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

VII. Conclusion

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the findings and sentence in United States v. Douangdara because the record failed to establish that the accused knowingly and consciously possessed child pornography while on active duty. The opinion highlights critical weaknesses in how trial courts sometimes handle digital-evidence cases and reinforces that the government must prove its case—not rely on assumptions about technology or the accused’s past behavior.

For service members facing charges involving digital media, this case underscores the importance of experienced, detail-oriented defense counsel. At Cave & Freeburg, we read every new opinion because we want to identify the opportunities, arguments, and strategies that can help you.

If you or someone you know faces a similar allegation, contact us. We will analyze every detail—just as ACCA did here—and fight to ensure that the government meets its burden.