Tikichick

Josh certainly caused a hell of a lot of collateral damage and anguish with his "victimless" crime. She better brace herself, because the sentencings I'm used to are when the gloves really come off and there isn't a lot of varnish covering graphic discussions from the prosecution side at that point.

It would trigger an appeal of sentence only, not apply to an appeal of the overall guilty verdict.

I think perhaps there is some confusion about what an appeal actually is. Absolutely if you are convicted you are entitled to court appointed counsel to "perfect your appeal". That doesn't mean that you get a trial. It means your appellate counsel would obtain transcripts of all hearings, look at your defense attorney's case files and other information and submit briefs to the appellate court outlining legal reasons and any alleged palpable legal errors associated with your case that should be taken up on appeal. Most of the time appeals end when the appellate court denies whatever is raised in those briefs and that is the end of the appeal. Because most of it is administrative in nature and the only "ruling" of the appeals court is a denial to hear an appeal (have a trial on it), to most observers and defendants it seems they never got an appeal.

Surprisingly restrained and well thought out. Doesn't ring with Amy's usual freewheeling, emotional, shoot from the hip blasts.

Absolutely. Even defendants with retained counsel who are convicted can receive court appointed appellate counsel. It's often the case that appeals are court appointed because not a lot of people can afford to retain appellate counsel after paying for counsel for trial.

For the sake of the innocent kids and the siblings who didn't do anything wrong, I hope they have a great time without Josh.

What are federal sentencing guidelines like if the Judge deviates much from the norm? Here at the state level even deviations with extensive explanations from the Judge are frequently taken up on appellate review of sentencing -- and many times remanded back to the trial court for resentencing. I'd hate to see him given a very justified upward deviation in sentencing that is then remanded for a resentencing, giving JB and supporters any room to point to as "see, even the justice system can see Josh didn't deserve to be found guilty and held accountable". I just want him to get as much of a sentence as the system will allow and fade into public obscurity -- while being miserable in incarceration.

Bravo, Madam! Flat out, plainspoken and very well said. Unvarnished truth. "You portrayed it as J O Y, Jesus, Others, Yourselves, but the J was Jim Bob, not Jesus." "You are evil. That was deception. That wasn't the spirit of God or being a Christian." Even if they never hear this I certainly hope these types of thoughts are running amuck in their minds, unbidden and uncontrolled, for the rest of their lives.

Couldn't remember Josie's name but I swear they showed Katie joining Josie and her partner to meet a customer for a consult and Katie was doing the trial run makeup while getting used to the airbrush.

Isn't Katie one of the daughters that joined her sister's wedding hair and makeup business after cosmetology school? I think I have that correct. Seems like she should have had flawless hair and makeup as a bride. I believe she was seen on their show getting familiar with airbrushing because that's what they use in the business.

I'd be surprised to see a judge prepared to face the outcry for allowing a felon convicted of CSAM the opportunity to "spend just one more Christmas with his children."

That would actually probably be interesting content to view -- if the parents weren't such repugnant wastes of flesh.

At the very least I hope the direction they've taken will open as many viewpoints as possible for their sons to consider as they form their own perspectives of the world and eventually make their own decisions about the lives they will lead as adults someday. Sad to think that a family determined to crank out eleventy million grandchildren is also a family that seems determined to keep as many of them from becoming productive and self sufficient members of society as possible.

I had no idea they had the temerity to appear in a parade. Interesting how many of the Thanksgiving prep pictures show the male Duggars involved in preparing the meal, which never seemed to be the case when their prized eldest was part of the gathering.

The sentence isn't in the jury's purview and should not come into deliberations in any way. Jury is the finder of fact and the sentencing (if any) is left up to the judge.

I have no problem with Josh and his parents being perpetually roasted in the media. His siblings shouldn't be expected to pay for the sins of that trio, especially the ones who were victimized.

If it makes you feel any better it's common for expert witnesses to have also spent a significant amount of time training in techniques to stay on course and on message during contentious cross examination. The name of the game for the defense, hoping that all they need is the first bite of the apple to result in an acquittal and never have to resort to hoping their seedlings sown for appellate issues sprout successfully. Testimony in a court of law that she's being well compensated to deliver.

Hopefully the Bates follow the Duggar example and get their show canceled too, without sexually exploiting and abusing children of course. Hoping to see those proudly racist idiots scrambling to work actual J.O.B. s for a living instead of continuing to exist as if they are celebrities -- because they absolutely do not deserve to be celebrated for anything.

All the tech talk is an easy route to boring and baffling jurors, planting some "reasonable" doubt. I'll believe it when they have completed deliberations and come back with the guilty verdict. Defense will be noting those early nodding heads and making notes -- which they will then use to increase their efforts to baffle and sway. They'll no doubt also be looking for any possible opening to dismiss any of the nodding heads. How many alternates sit on a federal panel?

What is it that you would be looking for to conclude that she is or has sought treatment for trauma? Plenty of people seek treatment for trauma, make progress and simply live their lives without disclosing the trauma, the treatment for it, or make comments to others about it. Just as you've suggested we don't know whether she is or was experiencing trauma symptoms we similarly don't know whether she would necessarily reveal anything about struggling or treatment publicly. My personal belief is that, if nothing else, she likely struggled with her experience being made public. That should have been entirely her choice.

IDK, but I doubt the Alford plea was the reason the West Memphis Three were able to gain their freedom. Conviction by trial includes appellate rights, something that is automatic for capital crimes. Michigan does not have the death penalty, so any crime with the possible penalty of life term is considered capital here. I find it hard to believe that the West Memphis Three only were able to establish their innocence and gain their freedom simply because of an Alford plea. I may be wrong, but from what I know about the appellate process it seems unlikely to me. Why would uncovering new, exonerating evidence in a capital case not merit review by an appellate court? Maintaining the liberty of the innocent is the spine of our entire justice system. I still maintain that allowing Alford pleas in cases of predators, especially child predators, would be tantamount to lining a cage full of overly enthusiastic monkeys with buttons to launch nuclear weapons.

Taking this over to Small Talk.

No, the Defense does not need to give an alternate theory of anything the Prosecution presents. Part of the protections of the Fifth Amendment is that the accused can remain silent and the defense is not required to even put forth a case whatsoever. Obviously most cases include a defense where at least the Prosecution's evidence is challenged and many times the Defense points out alternative possibilities of the crime being committed by someone else. Theoretically the Defendant and his lawyer could elect to sit silent throughout the entire case, not question any of the Prosecution's witnesses or bring any themselves and simply respond to legal and administrative inquiries from the Court.

If the Duggars weren't a TV family and were simply a fundie family with exactly the same beliefs and the exact same history, what would be wrong with Jinger living her life exactly as she pleases, including publishing a children's book? She hasn't molested or abused children, so why should she be precluded from living her life? I have no problem with Josh, JB and M receiving their lashings, but I don't think the siblings have any responsibility to answer for any of it. I'm not suggesting that Jinger actually does live her life as she pleases (sadly), or that I'm interested in her book. I'm simply saying that she has nothing to answer for in terms of Josh's crimes.

What was the Prosecutor's response regarding the fingerprinting comments? It's actually surprising sometimes that it's not so straightforward to find fingerprints as is assumed. Quite often what's found is partials, and frequently not partials that can be directly identified to anyone. Moreso for things like DNA, but sometimes this does apply to fingerprints as well, law enforcement and the prosecution have to be very strategic what evidence is forwarded for analysis due to cost constraints. It blew my mind to find out that this even applies to major murder trials. People assume things operate much like the OJ Simpson trial with the trail of blood drops, but that is very much an aberration from the norm. It's exactly how thousands of rape kits sat unanalyzed in an evidence room for literally years before it became widely known publicly and there was a huge outcry -- and eventually arrangements were made to start addressing that situation.