Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Quilt Fairy]

37 minutes ago, MamaR said:

A Canadian here so not very knowledgeable about the Franks hearing. If a judge rules in favour of it does that mean the case will be dismissed?  

IANAL, but if the judge had agreed to the motion (apparently he denied it), it would have meant that they would have held another hearing (a Franks hearing), with witnesses, specifically about whether the warrant was valid and obtained in good faith.  If not, all the evidence obtained under that warrant would have been suppressed. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Quilt Fairy

[hathorlive]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

You nailed Josh. He always thinks he can outwit anyone. And only a Fundy would think having a pregnant wife makes one look innocent.

He gets that from JB.  "Vote for me, I'm trustworthy and chocked full of goodness.  See my 19 prairie dressed children of the corn?"  But appearing harmless and congenial is the hallmark of a predator.  No one turns their kid over to a guy who looks like a crazy homeless man.  But they do drop their guard around a clean cut guy holding a bible.  Any time we got a case in and I heard the suspect was a minister, band teacher or  coach, my radar went off.   Men who hold positions of trust with children.  Now, we all know that includes doctors. 

I think if Josh was taking a plea deal, we'd know by now.  Courts don't exactly stay open late for Duggar time. I could be wrong, lol.  But I think the fool is going to trial. 

[Quilt Fairy]

Here's the court's opinion.  Read'em and weep, Josh:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59871253/62/united-states-v-duggar/

 

ETA: Per usual, the court throws plenty of shade at Josh (really his lawyers, but it's funnier to read it as Josh himself.) 

ETA2:  Trigger warning: There is a description of one of the files in the opinion. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Quilt Fairy

[On the Bias]

2 hours ago, quarks said:

BUT, after today, he won't know what's IN the agreement before he signs it. So it's in his best interests to sign an agreement today, when he knows exactly what he's agreeing to.

Sorry, there may be a misunderstanding, but Josh will always know what’s in his plea agreement.  His lawyers are ethically required to explain it to him, and before the judge accepts the plea he or she will question Josh to make sure he understands what he is pleading to and what sentence he faces.  That questioning is required under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11, to be precise).  If Josh pleads guilty, he won’t be pleading blind.  

[MamaR]

30 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

IANAL, but if the judge had agreed to the motion (apparently he denied it), it would have meant that they would have held another hearing (a Franks hearing), with witnesses, specifically about whether the warrant was valid and obtained in good faith.  If not, all the evidence obtained under that warrant would have been suppressed. 

Thank you!

[Quilt Fairy]

From what I've seen on Reddit, Josh has to accept the plea deal by today (either COB or midnight, opinions differ), but his lawyers have until Wednesday, Oct 20th, to file it with the court. 

[CandyCaneTree]

I just read the ruling and from what I understand that his lawyers were grasping at straws. Smuggar is fucked.  Accept the plea deal. 

[MargeGunderson]

Oh, the shade in that opinion is glorious! To one argument, they responded “The argument is rather thinly constructed, but the Court will nevertheless address it.” It almost verges on snarky in a few places. 

ETA - one section could have been summed up as “Bitch, please.” 

Edited October 18, 2021 by MargeGunderson

[EVS]

30 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Here's the court's opinion.  Read'em and weep, Josh:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59871253/62/united-states-v-duggar/

 

ETA: Per usual, the court throws plenty of shade at Josh (really his lawyers, but it's funnier to read it as Josh himself.) 

ETA2:  Trigger warning: There is a description of one of the files in the opinion. 

I have a question for anyone with legal knowledge. 
 

On page 10, it sounds like Josh claimed that the file with the pictures was only partially downloaded and couldn’t be viewed. On page 11, the judge said that there was a meeting where the government showed that file to Josh and his attorneys along with the video on the other file.  Then, if I am reading it correctly, it seems to say that the government offered to show Josh and his attorneys all the CSA material found on his computer and Josh and his attorneys declined that offer. 
 

So does that mean that there are definitely more images on his computer?  Can he be prosecuted for additional images at a later date?  What are the implications if there are more images?

[hathorlive]

22 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

Oh, the shade in that opinion is glorious! To one argument, they responded “The argument is rather thinly constructed, but the Court will nevertheless address it.” It almost verges on snarky in a few places. 

ETA - one section could have been summed up as “Bitch, please.” 

I really want to see this trial. I don't know who is writing these opinions (the Judge, with or without assistants) but my god I want to see him handle this trial.  Bitch please indeed!

 

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, EVS said:

So does that mean that there are definitely more images on his computer?  Can he be prosecuted for additional images at a later date?  What are the implications if there are more images?

There has always been the possibility that Josh downloaded more images than the two he has been charged with.  The prosecution charged Josh with 2 counts because they feel certain they can get a conviction.  If they did not charge Josh for other files, it means they cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that Josh was the one to download them.  For at least one of the charges, they know Josh was at the car lot the day the CSA was downloaded based on his phone and text records.  The feds want corroborating evidence that Josh was definitely at the computer in question the day and time the CSA was accessed.  They have not added any charges to the initial two which probably means they do not have the necessary corroborating evidence to place Josh at the scene for any additional downloads.  

[hathorlive]

18 minutes ago, EVS said:

I have a question for anyone with legal knowledge. 
 

On page 10, it sounds like Josh claimed that the file with the pictures was only partially downloaded and couldn’t be viewed. On page 11, the judge said that there was a meeting where the government showed that file to Josh and his attorneys along with the video on the other file.  Then, if I am reading it correctly, it seems to say that the government offered to show Josh and his attorneys all the CSA material found on his computer and Josh and his attorneys declined that offer. 
 

So does that mean that there are definitely more images on his computer?  Can he be prosecuted for additional images at a later date?  What are the implications if there are more images?

He can't be prosecuted at a later date for the same charges (aka possession of different CP images than he's charged with now) because of double jeopardy, I think. There are always more images than they charge for.  That's just the nature of these cases.  

I think the complete download is just the fancy (aka Fake) forensic expert's attempt to throw shade on the case.  I'm not sure what they mean in it didn't fully download.  If something partially downloads, many times it's still viewable.  Maybe the defense is trying to say that every single bit and byte wasn't downloaded and therefore the hashes didn't match.  But it makes no sense, because if you can view it, it's still CP.  I think the defense is trying to say that Josh wasn't sharing the full file but rather seeding part of the file and therefore it wasn't complete.  I totally have no clue what they are arguing and this is my line of work.  This is why I need a trial. I want to hear/read the "expert's" testimony.  Please note the sarcasm. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by hathorlive
after my accident I have trouble typing

[EVS]

1 minute ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

There has always been the possibility that Josh downloaded more images than the two he has been charged with.  The prosecution charged Josh with 2 counts because they feel certain they can get a conviction.  If they did not charge Josh for other files, it means they cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that Josh was the one to download them.  For at least one of the charges, they know Josh was at the car lot the day the CSA was downloaded based on his phone and text records.  The feds want corroborating evidence that Josh was definitely at the computer in question the day and time the CSA was accessed.  They have not added any charges to the initial two which probably means they do not have the necessary corroborating evidence to place Josh at the scene for any additional downloads.  

Thank you for the response. Two more questions: Can the additional images still be brought up at his trial or sentencing? Does their existence affect a plea deal in any way or affect whether or not Josh should take a plea deal?

[EVS]

4 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

He can't be prosecuted at a later date for the same charges (aka possession of different CP images than he's charged with now) because of double jeopardy, I think. There are always more images than they charge for.  That's just the nature of these cases.  

I think the complete download is just the fancy (aka Fake) forensic expert's attempt to throw shade on the case.  I'm not sure what they mean in it didn't fully download.  If something partially downloads, many times it's still viewable.  Maybe the defense is trying to say that every single bit and byte wasn't downloaded and therefore the hashes didn't match.  But it makes no sense, because if you can view it, it's still CP.  I think the defense is trying to say that Josh wasn't sharing the full file but rather seeding part of the file and therefore it wasn't complete.  I totally have no clue what they are arguing and this is my line of work.  This is why I need a trial. I want to hear/read the "expert's" testimony.  Please note the sarcasm. 

 Thank you for your informative response. I’m sorry about your accident. 

[BitterApple]

43 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

Oh, the shade in that opinion is glorious! To one argument, they responded “The argument is rather thinly constructed, but the Court will nevertheless address it.” It almost verges on snarky in a few places. 

ETA - one section could have been summed up as “Bitch, please.” 

Judge Timothy Brooks needs to join this forum and be among his people. The shade was glorious and so well-played.

[hathorlive]

4 minutes ago, EVS said:

 Thank you for your informative response. I’m sorry about your accident. 

I had a car accident and traumatic brain injury a while ago. Sometimes my fingers don't work well and my proofreading eyes fail me.  

Per the other images, you can talk about them during the trial. I've had prosecutors ask me "what did you find on the computer" as an opening salvo.  Their experts could then talk about DD and other images he's not charged on.  The expert can say I found XXX number of videos and XXX number of still images.  And then prosecutor can ask them to describe the nature of the images and videos.  So they work it in.  And in closing, the Prosecutor can reiterate how horrible the images and videos were.  I've actually had a case where the Defense attorney objected during the Prosecutor's closing arguments.  I did not know you could do that. I'm not sure the judge was really happy because he called them up to have a sidebar.

[Dianaofthehunt]

I’m hoping he’ll take the plea deal.
My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. I want to see him doing some time where child molesters are considethe bottom rung of despicable, and are dealt with accordingly re: prison code of ethics, if you will.

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

I’m hoping he’ll take the plea deal.
My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. I want to see him doing some time where child molesters are considethe bottom rung of despicable, and are dealt with accordingly re: prison code of ethics, if you will.

Yes, where he isn't going to be the "golden boy"

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

I’m hoping he’ll take the plea deal.
My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. I want to see him doing some time where child molesters are considethe bottom rung of despicable, and are dealt with accordingly re: prison code of ethics, if you will.

I think any man seeing the images would turn on him in a second.  It's one thing to treat your wife like a helpmeet, but it's another thing to see children horrifically abused and know the guy was watching it for sexual gratification.  

[EVS]

3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I had a car accident and traumatic brain injury a while ago. Sometimes my fingers don't work well and my proofreading eyes fail me.  

Per the other images, you can talk about them during the trial. I've had prosecutors ask me "what did you find on the computer" as an opening salvo.  Their experts could then talk about DD and other images he's not charged on.  The expert can say I found XXX number of videos and XXX number of still images.  And then prosecutor can ask them to describe the nature of the images and videos.  So they work it in.  And in closing, the Prosecutor can reiterate how horrible the images and videos were.  I've actually had a case where the Defense attorney objected during the Prosecutor's closing arguments.  I did not know you could do that. I'm not sure the judge was really happy because he called them up to have a sidebar.

I have a child who had a TBI in high school from a car accident followed by another freak accident. Some days were definitely easier than others. Thank you for both responses. They were very helpful. I always suspected there were other images but this was the first time I saw evidence of them. I didn’t read the other earlier documents though, so I may have missed it mentioned previously. 

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. 

If their eyes are open when the actual images are shown, and described as something Josh gets his orgasms from, it's hard for me to imagine anybody giving him a pass.

I mean, this isn't "pornography" in the way that any average person thinks of pornography. It's just hard for me to see that, no matter what intentions of jury nullification somebody might have come in with, they're not going to be frozen in shock and horror when they see this stuff. 

Plus, a lot of fundies-- allegedly, at least -- think of a Playboy centerfold as serious pornography. I doubt many of them have even begun to imagine the kind of stuff they'll be shown here. ... 

Unless they have eyeballs painted on their eyelids and just never look at what he's actually looked at for sexual gratification, I don't think we have much at all to worry about from fervent Christians trying to save him.......I suppose somebody might be nuts enough to persist in the idea that he's innocent and being framed by Satan.....but I'd think it'd be hard for somebody like that not to get weeded out during jury selection. 

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

If their eyes are open when the actual images are shown, and described as something Josh gets his orgasms from, it's hard for me to imagine anybody giving him a pass.

I mean, this isn't "pornography" in the way that any average person thinks of pornography. It's just hard for me to see that, no matter what intentions of jury nullification somebody might have come in with, they're not going to be frozen in shock and horror when they see this stuff. 

Plus, a lot of fundies-- allegedly, at least -- think of a Playboy centerfold as serious pornography. I doubt many of them have even begun to imagine the kind of stuff they'll be shown here. ... 

Unless they have eyeballs painted on their eyelids and just never look at what he's actually looked at for sexual gratification, I don't think we have much at all to worry about from fervent Christians trying to save him.......I suppose somebody might be nuts enough to persist in the idea that he's innocent and being framed by Satan.....but I'd think it'd be hard for somebody like that not to get weeded out during jury selection. 

Exactly.  And most sworn law enforcement officers who have kids can't do this job.  The nature of the images means that people tend to see their kids at that age and super impose them on the videos. It's the same with juries.  They think about what their 18 months old was like and then are revolted by the idea of someone sexualizing that.

[Fosca]

18 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

They thought they had Caesar Augustus, but what they actually had was Caligula. 

 

The entire post was great (as are all of Churchhoney's posts), but this is so spot-on I was stunned.  This sums up the story of Josh and how everyone treated him and what they hoped for and what they got in one sentence.  Brilliant! 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Fosca

[crazycatlady58]

49 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

I’m hoping he’ll take the plea deal.
My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. I want to see him doing some time where child molesters are considethe bottom rung of despicable, and are dealt with accordingly re: prison code of ethics, if you will.

Most redneck men I know would be more likely to take him in the barn with a baseball bat and have a ' Come to Jesus ' moment..literally..they would send him to meet Jesus. They will protect children. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

My greatest fear is that there’ll be enough redneck patriarchy-lovin’, religious zealots on the jury to vote not guilty. 

If you read any of the comments on local news stories about this case, I think you will very quickly be disabused of this notion about the potential jury pool. 

The Duggars are really not at all representative of the norm in the NWA Metro area nor the beloved local celebrities they are made out to be on snark sites.

I think even among a lot of conservative Christians who otherwise would be vaguely sympathetic to a fellow Christian, the charges are instant poison. I don't think anyone outside of their small circle of friends is rooting for him. 

Edited to add: I'm not saying there's not the chance that someone on the jury would end up being weirdly sympathetic to him. But the idea that the jury is going to be littered with brainwashed fellow Gothardites is just not accurate at all. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Zella

[hathorlive]

From Josh's motion: "from his seized electronic devices because it took investigators too long to perform their forensic analysis. Though the devices were seized within the time frame specified in the search warrant, the off-site forensic “search” of those devices took approximately sixteen more months. According to Mr. Duggar, since the investigators did not return to the magistrate judge during that sixteen-month period to explain why their forensic examination was taking so long, the court-authorized seizure of the devices became a “warrantless” search of their contents."

 

LOL.  OMG.  When I worked for the state, there were three of us responsible for all the forensic evidence in the entire state.  When one coworker had surgery, there were two us and an 18 month backlog.  Thank god the 8th circuit court of appeals has ruled that the warrant is considered executed when the evidence hits my laboratory door.  That means it takes me as long as it takes me to get things imaged, archived, examined and a report written.  I think California is the only state that gives us hard and fast deadlines, and even then I don't tend to understand what they are (I'm not in CA). I've had evidence from CA in my lab for two months that I just started today.  This is hilarious.  The Judge is very well aware that Forensic Examiners are like special unicorns.  There are so few of us and so much evidence to go through.  The defense attorneys are really creative.

[Quilt Fairy]

Also, was there anything else going on in 2020-21 that could have delayed things?  Hmmm, let me think.........

[Heathen]

4 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Also, was there anything else going on in 2020-21 that could have delayed things?  Hmmm, let me think.........

But covid is a hoax!!! -- Duggars, probably 

 

[lulu69]

5 hours ago, On the Bias said:

Sorry, there may be a misunderstanding, but Josh will always know what’s in his plea agreement.  His lawyers are ethically required to explain it to him, and before the judge accepts the plea he or she will question Josh to make sure he understands what he is pleading to and what sentence he faces.  That questioning is required under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11, to be precise).  If Josh pleads guilty, he won’t be pleading blind.  

Please forgive for being confused (that does seem to be a constant theme in my life)  but what special significance does today's deadline hold if Josh is able to take a plea deal up until jury deliberations & have full knowledge of the sentence?

I'm not grasping why Oct. 18th is significant in Josh's case.

[hathorlive]

3 minutes ago, lulu69 said:

Please forgive for being confused (that does seem to be a constant theme in my life)  but what special significance does today's deadline hold if Josh is able to take a plea deal up until jury deliberations & have full knowledge of the sentence?

I'm not grasping why Oct. 18th is significant in Josh's case.

He can't take a plea after midnight tonight.  If he doesn't plea, he has to go to trial.  So that's the big deal about today.

[CandyCaneTree]

So after Smuggar is convicted is he going to play the lawyers were ineffective card and demand a new trial?

[lulu69]

9 hours ago, quarks said:

Apparently he can still accept a plea agreement right up until jury deliberations start. 

BUT, after today, he won't know what's IN the agreement before he signs it. So it's in his best interests to sign an agreement today, when he knows exactly what he's agreeing to.

He presumably has until the end of business today to file that agreement. If he does, the court probably won't publish that filing/agreement for a few more days. So unless we get some sort of official statement from his attorneys/the Duggars, I don't think we'll know his decision for a few more days.

As of right now, his trial still seems to be scheduled for November 30th. 

 

7 hours ago, On the Bias said:

Sorry, there may be a misunderstanding, but Josh will always know what’s in his plea agreement.  His lawyers are ethically required to explain it to him, and before the judge accepts the plea he or she will question Josh to make sure he understands what he is pleading to and what sentence he faces.  That questioning is required under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11, to be precise).  If Josh pleads guilty, he won’t be pleading blind.  

 

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

He can't take a plea after midnight tonight.  If he doesn't plea, he has to go to trial.  So that's the big deal about today.

Between post #1& 3 is where I'm  lost, I think lol

 

[quarks]

7 hours ago, On the Bias said:

Sorry, there may be a misunderstanding, but Josh will always know what’s in his plea agreement.  His lawyers are ethically required to explain it to him, and before the judge accepts the plea he or she will question Josh to make sure he understands what he is pleading to and what sentence he faces.  That questioning is required under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11, to be precise).  If Josh pleads guilty, he won’t be pleading blind.  

 

 

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

He can't take a plea after midnight tonight.  If he doesn't plea, he has to go to trial.  So that's the big deal about today.

So I did a bit more digging, and from my understanding:

Today is (well, at this point, was) apparently the last day for Josh to accept a plea agreement, where Josh can plead guilty and know what the prosecution will be requesting for sentencing.

That said, it's not clear to me what exactly this date is based on. I know it's been cited by Emily Baker, by Reddit users citing Emily Baker, and by various tabloids citing Reddit users without crediting said Reddit users, but I couldn't find a specific court document stating that today was the last day for that agreement.  So we might all be wrong about the date anyway.  

Or we might be right, because today is exactly one month away from the next date that we do have - November 18th, the date currently scheduled for the pretrial conference. So it's quite possible that somewhere someplace there's a document saying that Josh has until one month before the pretrial conference to accept any plea agreement from the prosecution, and I wasn't able to find it. 

If we are correct, as of today, Josh could plead guilty knowing what sentence the prosecution would recommend to the court. After today, Josh can still plead guilty (he can do this pretty much right up until when the jury starts deliberating), but the earlier offer of a presumably lighter sentence won't be available, and he may be facing harsher penalties.

If we are wrong, today is irrelevant and whatever offer the prosecution is making will remain in place until the prosecution withdraws it for whatever reason or the trial starts. 

In either case, the judge will question Josh to make sure he understands what he's pleading to and what sentence he may face. If the judge later determines that Josh is not following the terms of a plea agreement (like Paul Manafort a few years back), the judge can determine that the agreement is void (again, like Paul Manafort a few years back.)

In any case, based on the evidence released so far and the judge's response to the fifth motion, I would strongly recommend to Josh that he plead guilty and save himself the expense and negative publicity of a trial, regardless of what is or isn't on offer and what today's date is. 

[all fall down]

11 hours ago, scriggle said:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Anna was pregnant on the dates the material was downloaded?

Yes, she was pregnant with MarYella. 

The downloads happened in May 2019, and MarYella was born in November 2019.

*

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't have 2 charges beacuse there were 2 files, correct? He has one charge of receipt of CP, and one charge of posession of CP. Those charges cover all the videos and images that were shared via P2P on those specific dates. I think I remember reading that they also found over 200 recently deleted photos on his computer, that weren't part of what was being downloaded that day, so they must have been there before those specific days in May. Am I remembering that correctly?

[quarks]

35 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

So after Smuggar is convicted is he going to play the lawyers were ineffective card and demand a new trial?

He can try, I guess, but honestly I think his lawyers have been pretty effective?

I mean, they've shown up for all the hearings so far. They managed to ensure that he could spend the pre-trial period under a sort of house arrest instead of jail, which given what he's charged with is pretty impressive. They also got the trial delayed so they could conduct their own forensic examination; managed to get multiple tabloids to suggest that other people not named Josh Duggar could have downloaded the CSA; and set up at least three, arguably five, grounds for a potential appeal. 

And they've managed to do this even though their suspect was caught with CSA on his own computer AND asked federal agents if they were searching his used car lot for CSA. It's impressive. 

5 minutes ago, christine falls said:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't have 2 charges beacuse there were 2 files, correct? He has one charge of receipt of CP, and one charge of posession of CP. Those charges cover all the videos and images that were shared via P2P on those specific dates. I think I remember reading that they also found over 200 recently deleted photos on his computer, that weren't part of what was being downloaded that day, so they must have been there before those specific days in May. Am I remembering that correctly?

The court documents are confusing on this point. Based on the initial indictment and the government's response to the fifth motion filed by the defense, they seem to be discussing two different groups of CSA files:

The ones found by the government during their initial BitTorrent search in May 2019. 

The ones found by the government on Josh's computer after it was seized in November 2019. Apparently the recently deleted photos were part of this group?

[all fall down]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

The court documents are confusing on this point. Based on the initial indictment and the government's response to the fifth motion filed by the defense, they seem to be discussing two different groups of CSA files:

The ones found by the government during their initial BitTorrent search in May 2019. 

The ones found by the government on Josh's computer after it was seized in November 2019. Apparently the recently deleted photos were part of this group?

Thanks! Glad it wasn't just me that was confused. I guess we'll have to wait until that's cleared up in (likely) trial. 

[Quilt Fairy]

3 hours ago, quarks said:

That said, it's not clear to me what exactly this date is based on. I know it's been cited by Emily Baker, by Reddit users citing Emily Baker, and by various tabloids citing Reddit users without crediting said Reddit users, but I couldn't find a specific court document stating that today was the last day for that agreement.  So we might all be wrong about the date anyway. 

OMG, I think you could be right.  I've been trying to track down the Oct 18 date, and all I can find is a tabloid quoting a Reddit user, and then other tabloids quoting that tabloid. 

[MsJamieDornan]

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/josh-duggars-trial-duggar-family-critics-question-will-pay-500000-josh-charged-2-accounts.html/     They seem to think there will be fines if Josh is convicted.

[On the Bias]

46 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I've been trying to track down the Oct 18 date, and all I can find is a tabloid quoting a Reddit user, and then other tabloids quoting that tabloid. 

I haven’t seen any of the judge’s orders and don’t know the significance of the October 18 date (which, as it now appears from the quoted bit above, may not even be part of an order), but if Josh decides to plead guilty, he can do so at almost any moment.  Whether he pleads after reaching an agreement with the prosecution or pleads without an agreement (“pleading open”) after the prosecution has withdrawn its offer is a different issue, but I’m not aware of any authority that the judge has to prevent the prosecution from negotiating a plea agreement after a certain date — on the contrary, the law is clear that judges aren’t allowed to insert themselves in plea negotiations other than encouraging the parties in general terms to come to an agreement.  

[GeeGolly]

From what I've seen on Law and Order (lol), the prosecution may offer a plea deal that expires on a certain date. If the defense initially denies the deal, that doesn't stop either side from trying to negotiate new deals up until the trial date.

Also from L & O, a defendant can change his plea to guilty at anytime before or during a trial, but not necessarily with a deal. Just a straight up change in plea.

Edited October 19, 2021 by GeeGolly

[ginger90]

It would be a crapshoot to accept a plea agreement I think. There’s no way to know what the sentence would be if he were to be found guilty by jury, vs a plea deal. It will still be up to the judge to impose the sentence either way. The plea deal is between the defense and prosecution, not the judge.

This is my thought, using a foggy brain at the moment. 😴 

[ginger90]

In blow to Duggar defense, judge won't suppress evidence collected in child porn case

by Ron Wood | Today at 1:00 a.m.

 

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/19/in-blow-to-duggar-defense-judge-wont-suppress/

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

It would be a crapshoot to accept a plea agreement I think. There’s no way to know what the sentence would be if he were to be found guilty by jury, vs a plea deal. It will still be up to the judge to impose the sentence either way. The plea deal is between the defense and prosecution, not the judge.

This is my thought, using a foggy brain at the moment. 😴 

That is so true. Judges seem to have lots of discretion when it comes to imposing sentences. In most of the court cases I've followed in the news, maximum sentences are often over sensationalized to make the cases seem bigger than they really are, and those found guilty seem to get sentences no where near the max. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that's the way it seems to me, anyway.

Also, most folks just don't plead guilty, so Josh going to trial would be within the norm.

 

[quarks]

6 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

OMG, I think you could be right.  I've been trying to track down the Oct 18 date, and all I can find is a tabloid quoting a Reddit user, and then other tabloids quoting that tabloid. 

Yeah. Meanwhile, On the Bias and Duggardata (over on Tumblr) are saying that they aren't aware of any authority/reason for yesterday's deadline, and I can't find anything official for this date.

So my apologies to everyone here for just going along with what I'd read on Reddit, instead of checking court documents - especially since I earlier criticized Emily Baker for making some glaring mistakes in her discussions. Had I realized earlier that she was -- apparently - the main source for this whole October 18 thing, I would have been more careful, but I didn't do enough digging.

 

36 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Also, most folks just don't plead guilty, so Josh going to trial would be within the norm.

 

In this case, however, I can quote from NBC News, quoting the Pew Research Center: 97% of federal prosecutions do plead guilty. 

NBC News article:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201

Making me feel a bit better, NBC News is not quoting the study completely accurately:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/ft_19-06-11_trialsandguiltypleas-pie-2/

As per the chart, 8% have their cases dismissed (this seems highly unlikely in Josh's case), 90% plead guilty, and 2% go to trial. Of those going to trial, 83% are convicted.

So yeah, Josh going to trial would be unusual. On the other hand, if he's looking at this study (and it's at least possible that he is) he may be figuring that if he does go to trial, he has a 17% chance of getting found not guilty. 

[hathorlive]

11 minutes ago, quarks said:

So yeah, Josh going to trial would be unusual. On the other hand, if he's looking at this study (and it's at least possible that he is) he may be figuring that if he does go to trial, he has a 17% chance of getting found not guilty. 

Hope someone's doing the math for Josh, SOTDRT graduate.  If he does the math himself, he might think he has an 87% chance of being acquitted.

[hathorlive]

16 hours ago, Zella said:

If you read any of the comments on local news stories about this case, I think you will very quickly be disabused of this notion about the potential jury pool. 

The Duggars are really not at all representative of the norm in the NWA Metro area nor the beloved local celebrities they are made out to be on snark sites.

I think even among a lot of conservative Christians who otherwise would be vaguely sympathetic to a fellow Christian, the charges are instant poison. I don't think anyone outside of their small circle of friends is rooting for him. 

Edited to add: I'm not saying there's not the chance that someone on the jury would end up being weirdly sympathetic to him. But the idea that the jury is going to be littered with brainwashed fellow Gothardites is just not accurate at all. 

If you want a quick laugh, go to foxnews.com and read the comments there.  https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-motions-child-pornography-case-denied-court-why

Not all conservatives, religious types, and people from the South think this is normal behavior. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

 

Also, most folks just don't plead guilty, so Josh going to trial would be within the norm.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that about 90 percent of federal cases (overall) are settled with a guilty plea..... !  

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

Wow, the plea rate being that high is wild. Its almost like a game of cat and mouse. They must emphasize every high sentence conviction scenario at every turn. It feels pleas are based more on the fear than on actual facts. 

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Wow, the plea rate being that high is wild. Its almost like a game of cat and mouse. They must emphasize every high sentence conviction scenario at every turn. It feels pleas are based more on the fear than on actual facts. 

When I worked for the state, I went to court several times a year.  Now that I'm federal, I haven't been to court in probably 4 years.  We rarely see a court room due to the plea rate.

[Churchhoney]

50 minutes ago, quarks said:

 

 

 

So yeah, Josh going to trial would be unusual. On the other hand, if he's looking at this study (and it's at least possible that he is) he may be figuring that if he does go to trial, he has a 17% chance of getting found not guilty. 

Of course, if he is -- though I'm not sure he could even do the math to get that far -- he's also figuring without taking into account the fact that many federal cases are way way way way way less routine than his and thus have many many many more potential reasons for jurors to find reasonable doubt!   

His case is very routine, with many many nearly identical cases all being churned out through the exact same program -- so there's a lot of prosecutorial and LE experience for his kind of case, and many fewer weird human or other elements to throw doubts of various kinds into the mix. I'd be surprised if the number of not-guilty verdicts in his suite of cases is even near the double digits, really. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney