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

[sds71]

Prosecution seeks bank records in Josh Duggar child porn case, requests witnesses excluded


The prosecution is seeking bank records that it states are “relevant for the Government’s case as they affirmatively exclude (the witness) from Wholesale Motors and (the) state of Arkansas on the dates in question.”

 

[BeckyF]

I wouldn't be surprised if both stay out.

Completely different context, but I think the judge struggled with Josh's past in deciding whether to allow access to the kids. Honestly, I think that a graphic description of the CSAM is more powerful than "worst of the worst." I linked to an article with that description and a mod edited my post with the warning that I neglected to include. Actually hearing what body parts went where is jarring.

As for the "confession" it gets tricky. As to Ashley Madison, the affair isn't relevant here IMO. As to viewing legal pornography, viewing legal pornography itself isn't the issue here, but it does go to his knowledge of getting around the Covenant software (and to be clear: I don't regard CSAM as pornographic entertainment.) The molestation is going to the trickiest, IMO, because he's not accused of molestation here. I'll have to do some research on that one. Even if previously molesting girls is relevant here, it could be considered unduly prejudicial. I haven't read the motions yet so apologies if I'm just repeating!

At the end of the day, I don't think it is fatal to the prosecution if all this is excluded.

I agree. I think they will both be left out.

 

[MsMarple]

The Main thing:

It is that typical, can you use someone's past against them?

The prosecution wants to get Josh's past sexual misconduct before the jury.

According to court documents, the prosecution says it may seek to introduce evidence at trial that Duggar committed other acts of sexual molestation.

The prosecution anticipates the evidence will consist of testimony that Duggar was investigated for, admitted to, and received counseling for sexually molesting minor females, beginning around 2002.

Should the prosecution be able to use this against Josh at his trial?

Yes √
No √

In my ideal world everything would be admitted at trial but all we can do is wait and see what the court decides. I do wonder if any of his past molestation charges could be brought into the sentencing phase if he's convicted. I would think that it should be shown that past counseling didn't prevent Josh's attraction to violent CSAM so maybe probation or a shortened sentence wouldn't be appropriate.

Didn't Josh also molest a non-family member? I wonder if she could testify. If she was willing of course.

 

[Cool Cats]

In my ideal world everything would be admitted at trial but all we can do is wait and see what the court decides. I do wonder if any of his past molestation charges could be brought into the sentencing phase if he's convicted. I would think that it should be shown that past counseling didn't prevent Josh's attraction to violent CSAM so maybe probation or a shortened sentence wouldn't be appropriate.

Didn't Josh also molest a non-family member? I wonder if she could testify. If she was willing of course.

A babysitter was mentioned as being touched inappropriately.

The Feds have a complicated process of figuring sentences, a type of point system.
If the judge lets in Josh's past history there is a chance it could play a role in the sentencing calculations. Not sure.

 

[HawthorneJuniper]

I wonder if these motions filed on Nov. 2 and Nov. 3 will delay the trial? If Judge agrees with the government and defense decides to appeal the judge's decision it could delay the trial. Just a thought.

You can’t appeal in the middle of a trial as a matter of right. There needs to be a procedural basis to file an appeal. There will be no delay about any of these motions IMO.

 

[BeckyF]

You can’t appeal in the middle of a trial as a matter of right. There needs to be a procedural basis to file an appeal. There will be no delay about any of these motions IMO.

We aren't in the middle of a trial. It hasn't even started yet. I should have used the phrase 'objected' to instead of 'appeal'. Obviously I don't understand anything about the procedures involved here re: these motions so it is no big deal.

 

[gitana1]

I hear you, but whether a post was public is not the standard for admissibility. Only relevant evidence is admissible, and even relevant evidence should be excluded if the risk of prejudice outweighs the probative value. Article IV - Relevance and its Limits - 2021 Federal Rules of Evidence

Yes. And also evidence of prior bad acts cannot be used to prove that a defendant committed a similar bad act, in the case against them.

I don’t think the social media posts or his prior history as a sex offender will come in.

 

[gitana1]

The seasoned cop's opinion on how disturbing the material on Josh's hidden drive was needs to be included in the trial. It says something about Josh's sexual preferences. What's next? Well, judge, you see, the 18 month old was really mature for her age, so we want her age redacted...

I don’t think it needs to be included. The jury will see the “materials” and be able to determine that it is super disturbing. I don’t think it needs to be excluded either. This cop has seen a lot so his opinion is that of an expert. It’s based on his experience and expertise.

But Josh is going down without that opinion. It’s not necessary to the case, I believe.

 

[BeckyF]

Well, I felt a little silly not understanding what a motion in limine is so I researched and have a lot better understanding of what they are now. It looks like this case is going to trial.

 

[nyvictoria]

While I’d like to see every single sordid detail of Josh’s past introduced at trial, I don’t think the judge will allow the molestation. As @Shamrock1 states, despite the judge knowing there was prior relevant behavior, he allowed Josh visitation with his children, as long as he’s supervised by Anna.

As for the agent’s statement about it being the worst he’s ever seen, I agree with most that a description of the CSAM along with the age of the victim will be more than sufficient.

Does anyone think there’s any chance of Josh testifying? I don’t but given that he and his supporters have claimed he’s being framed and/or it was someone else viewing the CSAM, how will the defense get that across to the jury without Josh testifying?

 

[Scrapper18]

I hear you, but whether a post was public is not the standard for admissibility. Only relevant evidence is admissible, and even relevant evidence should be excluded if the risk of prejudice outweighs the probative value. Article IV - Relevance and its Limits - 2021 Federal Rules of Evidence

I believe the post was about the Ashley Madison account and pornography. JMO, both of these, while in poor judgement, were legal. I’m not sure how you can hold legal activity against someone. MOO

In my ideal world everything would be admitted at trial but all we can do is wait and see what the court decides. I do wonder if any of his past molestation charges could be brought into the sentencing phase if he's convicted. I would think that it should be shown that past counseling didn't prevent Josh's attraction to violent CSAM so maybe probation or a shortened sentence wouldn't be appropriate.

Didn't Josh also molest a non-family member? I wonder if she could testify. If she was willing of course.

MOO, I think the fact Josh was a minor AND there were no charges brought against him will make it difficult to allow this. JMO

 

[Shamrock1]

The Main thing:

It is that typical, can you use someone's past against them?

The prosecution wants to get Josh's past sexual misconduct before the jury.

According to court documents, the prosecution says it may seek to introduce evidence at trial that Duggar committed other acts of sexual molestation.

The prosecution anticipates the evidence will consist of testimony that Duggar was investigated for, admitted to, and received counseling for sexually molesting minor females, beginning around 2002.

Should the prosecution be able to use this against Josh at his trial?

Yes √
No √

The general rule is that past wrongs cannot be used to show that someone committed the wrong at issue under FRE 404(b):

Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Evidence of prior wrongs may be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, identity, preparation/planning, and lack of accident/mistake. I don’t see a strong argument that the prior molestations fall into any of these exceptions. JMO.

 

[jessarox]

I believe the post was about the Ashley Madison account and pornography. JMO, both of these, while in poor judgement, were legal. I’m not sure how you can hold legal activity against someone. MOO

I don't think they're trying to hold it against him. They're trying to prove that Josh was the one using the computer. The motion states that they want to bring the pornography up because it explains why Covenant Eyes was installed on a WORK computer and that he would have reason to install a Linux partition so he could go around the Covenant Eyes program.

I'm sure they have other things to place Josh there at the time the CSAM was accessed but this is just another part of it to further prove that it was him and not someone else with access to the computer.

 

[Cool Cats]

The general rule is that past wrongs cannot be used to show that someone committed the wrong at issue under FRE 404(b):

Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Evidence of prior wrongs may be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, identity, preparation/planning, and lack of accident/mistake. I don’t see a strong argument that the prior molestations fall into any of these exceptions. JMO.

Confusing. What is FRE 404(b)...?

From your description it sounds like the judge might let his prior past, what they call:

Other Acts Evidence in.

It is called Other Acts Evidence at the State level and just like with Federal Cases the State Prosecution puts together Motions to try to get the Other Acts admitted in the trial.

So this is what is happening in Josh's Federal Case. The Judge will decide if it is legal to admit Josh's past molestations into evidence, including his Facebook confession.

Be interesting to see how the Judge rules.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don't think they're trying to hold it against him. They're trying to prove that Josh was the one using the computer. The motion states that they want to bring the pornography up because it explains why Covenant Eyes was installed on a WORK computer and that he would have reason to install a Linux partition so he could go around the Covenant Eyes program.

I'm sure they have other things to place Josh there at the time the CSAM was accessed but this is just another part of it to further prove that it was him and not someone else with access to the computer.

Thanks for the information. I looked it up and this explains what you are saying:

Prosecutors want to use Josh Duggar's self-described porn addiction against him in court, documents show

Following the 2015 hack of the website, Duggar released a statement saying he had been "the biggest hypocrite ever."

"While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife," the statement said.

Duggar's initial statement was later amended to remove the reference to pornography, CNN reported at the time.

Prosecutors want to use this statement to explain why Duggar had an anti-porn program called Covenant Eyes downloaded onto his computer. Convenant Eyes is a program designed to help curb porn viewage by reporting any porn searches to a specially designated accountability partner, in this case Duggar's wife, Anna.

Duggar was able to get around the Convenant Eyes software to view child pornography by installing a special browser which allowed him to surf the dark web undetected, prosecutors said.

But Duggar's lawyers want a judge to block the Ashley Madison statement from being used against him in court, because it could turn the jury against him.

They argued that his membership to a dating site for consenting adults, and admissions to infidelity or viewing adult pornography, "are not in any way relevant to whether Duggar committed the crimes pending in this case," and would be "unfairly prejudicial."

"If the jury learns of allegations that Duggar was in some way unfaithful to his wife or had a supposed 'addiction' to viewing adult pornography, an unacceptable risk exists that the jury will convict him in the case, not because the Government has proven him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt,

but because the jury will improperly conclude that these unrelated allegations against Duggar somehow make it more likely that he committed the charged offenses in this case," the defense lawyers argued in their court filing.

 

[MsJosie]

I don’t think the lawyer will allow or want Josh to testify, but IMO I think he wants too. In his mind and those of his parents he did no wrong. If he does testify I think he will mess up an tell different stories then what has been given, answer questions differently then before…..and oops reveal he is guilty….jmoo

I do wonder who will be there sibling wise to support him….maybe they will b3 ordered too go. Jmoo

 

[Shamrock1]

Confusing. What is FRE 404(b)...?

From your description it sounds like the judge might let his prior past, what they call:

Other Acts Evidence in.

It is called Other Acts Evidence at the State level and just like with Federal Cases the State Prosecution puts together Motions to try to get the Other Acts admitted in the trial.

So this is what is happening in Josh's Federal Case. The Judge will decide if it is legal to admit Josh's past molestations into evidence, including his Facebook confession.

Be interesting to see how the Judge rules.

I'm sorry - FRE stands for Federal Rules of Evidence. Here's a link: Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts - 2021 Federal Rules of Evidence

 

[mickey2942]

I really can't believe how stupid Josh Duggar is...he used a credit card to purchase the CSAM, and downloaded onto a password protected partition on his own computer at work.

I could almost believe that no one could possibly be that stupid. And that Josh Duggar's next "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" defense, is that he was set up. Because "no one could be this stupid".

But, then, the defense has to at least identify who would want to do this, and coordinate the videos playing/downloaded/purchased the same time Josh Duggar was on the property. And how it was done...

 

[Scrapper18]

I really can't believe how stupid Josh Duggar is...he used a credit card to purchase the CSAM, and downloaded onto a password protected partition on his own computer at work.

I could almost believe that no one could possibly be that stupid. And that Josh Duggar's next "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" defense, is that he was set up. Because "no one could be this stupid".

But, then, the defense has to at least identify who would want to do this, and coordinate the videos playing/downloaded/purchased the same time Josh Duggar was on the property. And how it was done...

Do you have a source on Josh using a credit card to access the CSA videos? I would like to read it. That’s the first I’ve heard of that evidence.

 

[tayaway]

I really can't believe how stupid Josh Duggar is...he used a credit card to purchase the CSAM, and downloaded onto a password protected partition on his own computer at work.

I could almost believe that no one could possibly be that stupid. And that Josh Duggar's next "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" defense, is that he was set up. Because "no one could be this stupid".

But, then, the defense has to at least identify who would want to do this, and coordinate the videos playing/downloaded/purchased the same time Josh Duggar was on the property. And how it was done...

We know that JD used his cr crd to pay for the Ashley Maddison membership for married people who want to cheat on their spouses. Not so sure we've seen evidence that he purchased CSAM with his cr crd.