Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2

[oviedo]

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of the Defendant’s Prior Child Molestation Conduct (Doc. 68) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Juvenile Allegations (Doc. 72) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1st day of December, 2021.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.106.0.pdf

so all of his prior acts are now admissible???

 

[CrimeAway]

Here is the courtlistener page for Josh's case:

Docket for United States v. Duggar, 5:21-cr-50014 - CourtListener.com

 

[Hoosgirl]

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of the Defendant’s Prior Child Molestation Conduct (Doc. 68) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Juvenile Allegations (Doc. 72) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1st day of December, 2021.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.106.0.pdf

Excellent!

And boy, there are some pointed zingers against Jim Bob in there. I like this judge.

 

[Hoosgirl]

so all of his prior acts are now admissible???

IANAL but sounds like it to me. Paging @gitana1 for her insight.

 

[sds71]

so all of his prior acts are now admissible???

Yes
From 2002 and 2003

 

[HawthorneJuniper]

so all of his prior acts are now admissible???

Yes, all those related to his molestation. It doesn't include the Ashley Madison adultery acts. Only those constituting child molestation, sexual assault under Arkansas law. So the acts against the minor victims are admissible. I assume that is why Jill is on the witness list-to supply first hand knowledge of the molestation. So they will have the Ms. Holt testimony and Jills. Not sure if there are other planned witnesses on that.

There will be a limiting instruction in regard to this evidence:

From the Order
"Here, the evidence is prejudicial “for the same reason it is probative.” Id. The Court will provide the limiting instruction contemplated by Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction § 2.08A"

The limiting instruction is needed:

"Because similar act evidence tends not only to prove the commission of the act but also has a tendency to show the defendant's bad or criminal character, undue prejudice must be avoided. This instruction, which in effect tells the jury to consider the evidence only on the issue of identity and not on the issue of character, should be given on request. See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 914–15 (2d Cir. 1979); see also McMillian, 535 F.2d at 1038–39."

"2.08A DEFENDANT'S PRIOR SIMILAR ACTS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CHILD MOLESTATION CASES (FED. R. EVID. 413 AND 414)
You [are about to hear] [have heard]1 evidence that the defendant may have previously committed [another] [other] offense of [sexual assault] [child molestation]. The defendant is not charged with [this] [these] other offense. You may consider this evidence only if you unanimously find it is more likely true than not true. You decide that by considering all of the evidence and deciding what evidence is more believable. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you find that [this offense has] [these offenses have] not been proved, you must disregard [it] [them].2 If you find that [this offense has] [these offenses have] been proved, you may consider [it] [them] to help you decide any matter to which [it is] [they are] relevant. You should give [it] [them] the weight and value you believe [it is] [they are] entitled to receive. You may consider the evidence of such other act of [sexual assault] [child molestation] for its tendency, if any, to show the defendant's propensity3 to engage in [sexual assault] [child molestation] [.] [, as well as its tendency, if any, to [determine whether the defendant committed the acts charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's intent] [determine the identity of the person who committed the act charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's (motive) (plan) (design) (opportunity) to commit the act charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's knowledge] [rebut the contention of the defendant that [his] [her] participation in the offense charged in the Indictment was the result of (accident) (mistake) (entrapment)] [rebut the issue of __________ raised by the defense].]
Remember, the defendant is on trial only for the crime charged. You may not convict a person simply because you believe [he] [she] may have committed similar acts in the past."

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.mowd.uscourts.gov%2Fjmi%2FCriminal-Jury-Instructions-2020.pdf&clen=3603998&chunk=true

 

[HawthorneJuniper]

I keep trying to remove the blackline! But I can't for some reason completely unknown to me. I included the link so you can read a clean version.

Yes, all those related to his molestation. It doesn't include the Ashley Madison adultery acts. Only those constituting child molestation, sexual assault under Arkansas law. So the acts against the minor victims are admissible. I assume that is why Jill is on the witness list-to supply first hand knowledge of the molestation. So they will have the Ms. Holt testimony and Jills. Not sure if there are other planned witnesses on that.

There will be a limiting instruction in regard to this evidence:

From the Order
"Here, the evidence is prejudicial “for the same reason it is probative.” Id. The Court will provide the limiting instruction contemplated by Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction § 2.08A"

The limiting instruction is needed:

"Because similar act evidence tends not only to prove the commission of the act but also has a tendency to show the defendant's bad or criminal character, undue prejudice must be avoided. This instruction, which in effect tells the jury to consider the evidence only on the issue of identity and not on the issue of character, should be given on request. See United States v. Danzey, 594 F.2d 905, 914–15 (2d Cir. 1979); see also McMillian, 535 F.2d at 1038–39."

"2.08A DEFENDANT'S PRIOR SIMILAR ACTS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CHILD MOLESTATION CASES (FED. R. EVID. 413 AND 414)
You [are about to hear] [have heard]1 evidence that the defendant may have previously committed [another] [other] offense of [sexual assault] [child molestation]. The defendant is not charged with [this] [these] other offense. You may consider this evidence only if you unanimously find it is more likely true than not true. You decide that by considering all of the evidence and deciding what evidence is more believable. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you find that [this offense has] [these offenses have] not been proved, you must disregard [it] [them].2 If you find that [this offense has] [these offenses have] been proved, you may consider [it] [them] to help you decide any matter to which [it is] [they are] relevant. You should give [it] [them] the weight and value you believe [it is] [they are] entitled to receive. You may consider the evidence of such other act of [sexual assault] [child molestation] for its tendency, if any, to show the defendant's propensity3 to engage in [sexual assault] [child molestation] [.] [, as well as its tendency, if any, to [determine whether the defendant committed the acts charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's intent] [determine the identity of the person who committed the act charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's (motive) (plan) (design) (opportunity) to commit the act charged in the Indictment] [determine the defendant's knowledge] [rebut the contention of the defendant that [his] [her] participation in the offense charged in the Indictment was the result of (accident) (mistake) (entrapment)] [rebut the issue of __________ raised by the defense].]
Remember, the defendant is on trial only for the crime charged. You may not convict a person simply because you believe [he] [she] may have committed similar acts in the past."

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.mowd.uscourts.gov%2Fjmi%2FCriminal-Jury-Instructions-2020.pdf&clen=3603998&chunk=true

 

[oviedo]

I keep trying to remove the blackline! But I can't for some reason completely unknown to me. I included the link so you can read a clean version.

Thank you for this information!

 

[mickey2942]

That is some wampum bad news for Josh Duggar. Enhancement on sentencing if convicted. Prior bad acts, pedophilia.

Take the plea. Dude. Stop the madness. The judge can take it under consideration. Nope, he is Balls to the Wall. Ready to throw anyone under the bus. This is going to be "Kitchen Sink" defense.

 

[Bravo]

I cant help but worry for the female children of JD. Apparently Anna appears to have no concerns since she is standing by her vile man

 

[BeckyF]

Excellent!

And boy, there are some pointed zingers against Jim Bob in there. I like this judge.

I love those zingers! Keep it up Judge!

 

[CrimeAway]

As per The Sun newspaper, Anna was present in the courtroom earlier, but left before CSA images were shown.

Updates from The Sun here:

Josh Duggar child trial will include testimony from siblings Jill & Jed

 

[sds71]

From
@ccmccandless
who is in court today for opening statements for #JoshDuggar’s trial: Prosecution outlines the case in “graphic detail” Defense says case is "a classic whodunnit." Their computer forensic expert will be key.

@AnnaDarlingTV

We can’t have any technology in the courtroom but we can have paper and pencil! Check out these awesome sketches from the very talented
@JohnKushmaul
.That’s Det. Kalmer on the stand in #JoshDuggar’s trial.

 

[Hoosgirl]

During opening statements, Duggar’s attorney argued that someone else downloaded or placed the images depicting the sexual abuse of children on his computer.

“If you like a mystery, then this is the case for you,” Justin Gilfand, representing Duggar, told jurors in his opening statement, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. “This is a classic, old fashioned whodunit.”

But federal prosecutors detailed logs showing minute-by-minute, the activity on Duggar’s computer that alternated between sending personal messages, downloading child and saving pictures of notes, the newspaper reported.

Past molestation evidence allowed in Duggar child trial | AP News

 

[gitana1]

I wonder if Jed is testifying for the Prosecution. To get ahead of the Defense if they try to create doubt and throw Jed under the bus. Given the Brothers worked together.

I wondered. Like maybe asking him when he was there and if he ever accessed the computer or looked up .

 

[gitana1]

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of the Defendant’s Prior Child Molestation Conduct (Doc. 68) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Juvenile Allegations (Doc. 72) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1st day of December, 2021.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.106.0.pdf

Nice! This is awesome! From the link:


Rule 414(a) provides that “n a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation.” The Rule defines “child molestation” as “a crime under federal law or under state law” and involving, as pertinent here, “any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110” or “contact between any part of the defendant’s body—or an object—and a child’s genitals or anus.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(B) & (D).
Defendant is charged with two child offenses prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Defendant is therefore “accused of child molestation” as defined by Rule 414. The Government asserts that it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that in 2002 or 2003, Defendant committed the crime of sexual assault in the second degree as defined by Arkansas Code § 5-14-125—though he was not charged with any crime. His victims were all under the age of twelve, and he was approximately fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. Under Arkansas law, an individual is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree if that person engages in “sexual contact”—defined as “[a]n act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through the clothing, of the sex organs”— with another person who is less than fourteen years of age and not the person’s spouse. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-101(12)(A) and 125(5)(A).


According to the Eighth Circuit, “when a criminal defendant is accused of child molestation—including child- crimes under 18 U.S.C. chapter 110—the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation.” United States v. Splettstoeszer, 956 F.3d 545, 547 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The prior acts do not have to be identical to the current charges to be admissible. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has held that hands-on child-molestation offenses are relevant to show a defendant’s propensity to commit child crimes.

 

[Peppery]

so if Jill is testifying, do we think that she volunteered? And would that be because she has first hand knowledge of JD viewing/possessing CSAM? Or could she be testifying as a victim in a previous crime unrelated to these exact charges?

 

[gitana1]

I cant help but worry for the female children of JD. Apparently Anna appears to have no concerns since she is standing by her vile man

IMO, from what I have seen, in their sect, child molestation is no different than lying. And victims should thank their molester because the abuse helps strengthen them spiritually.

I worry greatly for her kids.

For those who wish to know more about why Anna Duggar might stay with Josh and support him and how abuse is treated in their religious sect, searching Facebook for the page “Thriving Forward” and looking at an April 30, 2021 post may be illuminating.

 

[gitana1]

so if Jill is testifying, do we think that she volunteered? And would that be because she has first hand knowledge of JD viewing/possessing CSAM? Or could she be testifying as a victim in a previous crime unrelated to these exact charges?

I don’t know. But she was a victim. She gave an interview about it.

 

[CrimeAway]

Nice! This is awesome! From the link:


Rule 414(a) provides that “n a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation.” The Rule defines “child molestation” as “a crime under federal law or under state law” and involving, as pertinent here, “any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110” or “contact between any part of the defendant’s body—or an object—and a child’s genitals or anus.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(B) & (D).
Defendant is charged with two child offenses prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Defendant is therefore “accused of child molestation” as defined by Rule 414. The Government asserts that it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that in 2002 or 2003, Defendant committed the crime of sexual assault in the second degree as defined by Arkansas Code § 5-14-125—though he was not charged with any crime. His victims were all under the age of twelve, and he was approximately fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. Under Arkansas law, an individual is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree if that person engages in “sexual contact”—defined as “[a]n act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through the clothing, of the sex organs”— with another person who is less than fourteen years of age and not the person’s spouse. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-101(12)(A) and 125(5)(A).


According to the Eighth Circuit, “when a criminal defendant is accused of child molestation—including child- crimes under 18 U.S.C. chapter 110—the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation.” United States v. Splettstoeszer, 956 F.3d 545, 547 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The prior acts do not have to be identical to the current charges to be admissible. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has held that hands-on child-molestation offenses are relevant to show a defendant’s propensity to commit child crimes.

Thank you for pulling that out @gitana1