Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[sheshark]

7 hours ago, FizzyPuff said:

If anyone is interested Dr Oz did a show about Josh: 

 

Can this kind of publicity be used by Josh’s lawyers in the jury selection for the trial?  It seems hard to believe anyone would not know about this.

[quarks]

Well, it's frequently impossible for attorneys to find twelve people who have never heard anything about high profile cases/entities. I was called up for jury duty once in a civil case accusing a very well known car manufacturer of gross negligence. The attorneys couldn't and didn't try to eliminate jurors for knowing about the company. They were just trying to see if jurors could put aside any pre-held conceptions about the company, or had any direct financial relationships (like working at a car dealership) with that company or its business rivals. It all felt pretty routine, with attorneys on both sides following generally agreed upon rules.   

So I assume something similar will apply here. I mean, sure, not everyone is going to know about the Duggars, or know that much about the Duggars, but even with prospective jurors who do, I think the issue is going to be less "do you know about the Duggars and Josh Duggar" and more, "if the judge tells you that you cannot consider the past molestations when deciding the verdict, would you be able to follow those instructions? Have you ever bought a used car from these people? Were you a victim of CSA or do you have a close friend/family member who was?"

That sort of thing.

[GeeGolly]

From what I have read, and seen in a couple of recent trials, courts are having to pivot when it comes to the old thoughts about publicity and jurors tainted by news.

We live in a world of 24 hour news cycles and the internet. It the old days they could move to the next county to find prospective jurors who hadn't heard anything about defendants. Now a days, folks across the country have heard about even minor cases.

[CandyCaneTree]

I wonder if Smuggars attorneys will let him testify or will every answer is I Pleed the 5th?

[Dianaofthehunt]

6 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

I wonder if Smuggars attorneys will let him testify or will every answer is I Pleed the 5th?

Isn’t pleading the 5th Amendment a subrosa way of saying “I’m guilty?”

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Isn’t pleading the 5th Amendment a subrosa way of saying “I’m guilty?”

I mean, it can be, but it is still your constitutional right to do so to avoid incriminating yourself. It always makes me really uncomfortable when things you are legally guaranteed (like the right to ask for an attorney or the right to plead the fifth) is held against someone as a sure sign of guilt. It's a foundational aspect of our justice system, and I don't begrudge anyone's right to it, even a shitstain like Josh Duggar. There is so much better evidence against Josh than whether or not he pleads the fifth. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Zella

[ginger90]

2 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Isn’t pleading the 5th Amendment a subrosa way of saying “I’m guilty?”

It’s not supposed to be seen as such.

He can remain silent from the time he’s arrested until the conclusion of the trial.

[GeeGolly]

I don't think you can plead the 5th when taking the stand in your own trial.

[ginger90]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I don't think you can plead the 5th when taking the stand in your own trial.

As far as I know (not much) a defendant  can plead the 5th and not take the stand. Once you take the stand all bets are off.

[Churchhoney]

He can refuse to testify in his trial altogether. He can't go on the stand and then answer some questions but not others. . 

ETA: Sorry. Didn't mean to be repetitive. I was 30 seconds behind @ginger90

Edited November 8, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Zella]

Yeah you use it when you are being compelled to testify and don't wish to. He can just opt not to testify at his trial. 

[quarks]

I'll honestly be shocked if Josh takes the stand. 

But as I've noted previously, Josh appears to enjoy extremely high-risk behavior, thus why he's on trial in the first place. So he might go ahead and shock me.

 

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, quarks said:

I'll honestly be shocked if Josh takes the stand. 

But as I've noted previously, Josh appears to enjoy extremely high-risk behavior, thus why he's on trial in the first place. So he might go ahead and shock me.

 

My instinct was always that Josh would never testify, but I was also sure he'd crumble and accept a plea. I can see his lawyers pleading with him not to take the stand and him thinking he'll be his own best witness. If he does, I think he'll try the same shtick he tried to pull with the Homeland Security people who showed up the search ("Howdy, there, neighbor! I'm super helpful until I'm not and want to make sure you know I've got a pregnant wife at home") and get eaten alive by the prosecutor. LOL 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Zella

[GeeGolly]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

My instinct was always that Josh would never testify, but I was also sure he'd crumble and accept a plea. I can see his lawyers pleading with him not to take the stand and him thinking he'll be his own best witness. If he does, I think he'll try the same shtick he tried to pull with the Homeland Security people who showed up the search ("Howdy, there, neighbor! I'm super helpful until I'm not and want to make sure you know I've got a pregnant wife at home") and get eaten alive by the prosecutor. LOL 

I think he's cocky as shit, but then I remember Josh being approach by the media (or maybe law enforcement) right before Scandal 1 broke and he told them "you need to speak to my dad". Josh was 27 years old at the time.

[CandyCaneTree]

I. Knew that Smuggar would never accept a plea. I just hope that his lawyers let him testify because the first thing out of his mouth will sink him. If he pleads the 5th then the jury will wonder what else is he hiding. 

[Zella]

37 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I think he's cocky as shit, but then I remember Josh being approach by the media (or maybe law enforcement) right before Scandal 1 broke and he told them "you need to speak to my dad". Josh was 27 years old at the time.

Is it wrong to hope he testifies and says that in court? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[GeeGolly]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

Is it wrong to hope he testifies and says that in court? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If its wrong, I'm right there with you!

[quarks]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

My instinct was always that Josh would never testify, but I was also sure he'd crumble and accept a plea. I can see his lawyers pleading with him not to take the stand and him thinking he'll be his own best witness. If he does, I think he'll try the same shtick he tried to pull with the Homeland Security people who showed up the search ("Howdy, there, neighbor! I'm super helpful until I'm not and want to make sure you know I've got a pregnant wife at home") and get eaten alive by the prosecutor. LOL 

Yeah. My initial instinct, after reading the comments here, was just to go, of course he won't be testifying, are all of you nuts? Then I realized who we were talking about and realized that, ok, fair enough, valid question! None of you are nuts!

I mean, I think it's fairly certain that his attorneys pointed out the advantages of accepting a plea agreement. Probably more than once. And yet here we are, heading on to a trial.

[Absolom]

I only see two upsides to Josh taking this to trial: 1) hoping for a wild hare jury that doesn't find him guilty and 2) maintaining his appeal rights.  

[Dianaofthehunt]

14 minutes ago, Absolom said:

I only see two upsides to Josh taking this to trial: 1) hoping for a wild hare jury that doesn't find him guilty and 2) maintaining his appeal rights.  

In the event of an an appeal, would he go back to living with the Rebers until the new trial, or would he at least get *some* prison time?

 

14 minutes ago, Absolom said:

 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

 

I mean, I think it's fairly certain that his attorneys pointed out the advantages of accepting a plea agreement. Probably more than once. 

And I'm sure they're trying even harder to convince him not to testify. Especially considering the mind-blowing stuff he said when the investigators  showed up.  

But I really don't think he will testify. Surely the lawyers are going to run through the kinds of questions he'd definitely be asked.

 I think that kind of discussion might wake even an arrogant dumb-ass-in-denial like Josh to the possibility -- (certainty, but I admit that Josh will only accept it as a possibility) -- that it'll be darned hard -- (impossible, but in his denial he won't be able to admit that) -- to know the right thing to say to make himself look innocent while avoiding additional charges for perjury when some of those questions come up. 

My guess is that right now he's probably insisting on testifying but he'll ultimately decide it could endanger his image too much and agree not to do it.

I may be overestimating his ability to feel fear when he hears the real questions his lawyers won't be able to stop and sees how hard it'll really be to thread the needle on the stand. But while I agree that he's reckless, I also think he's a scared little worm, and I can see the scared worm winning out on this one.

When it came to rejecting a plea deal and going for the trial, that was a much easier and more congenial-to-Josh decision, I think. It was a matter of depending on the expensive lawyers to bail him out. Just as if they were daddy. After all, going to trial and fighting for him is why he got that expensive lawyer in the first place! ....

Plenty of people here and elsewhere agreed with him on that, too, on the argument that the difference in the outcomes would likely be pretty small between pleading guilty and being convicted, so why not roll the dice for the chance to get no sentence at all? 

But whether or not to testify seems to me to be a very different kind of decision. One where he can't bet on anybody else but has to put himself on the line personally. 

Going on the stand himself means battling with the other side's lawyers pretty much undefended, at least for any questions his lawyers can't get thrown out. And I'm sure they're telling him over and over again that, while they'll absolutely try everything they can think of to get the prosecutors' questioning shut down completely, it's very unlikely that anyone can convince a judge to ban every single difficult or dangerous question. 

When it comes down to it, my bet is that he'll realize he doesn't have the nerve to face a prosecutor and a courtroom full of people on his own. Not that he'll say that out loud to anyone, of course. I think he might tell himself -- and everybody else --  that he simply shouldn't have to -- that's what he's paying those lawyers for. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Churchhoney]

14 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

In the event of an an appeal, would he go back to living with the Rebers until the new trial, or would he at least get *some* prison time?

 

 

Depends on whether your lawyer can convince the court that fairness demands that you be freed, I think..... That generally means your appeals lawyer has to be able to convince the court that there's a really strong chance that your guilty verdict should and will be overturned....

Edited November 8, 2021 by Churchhoney

[MargeGunderson]

Are we taking bets on this yet? My money is on Josh taking a plea at some point during the trial. 

[quarks]

49 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

In the event of an an appeal, would he go back to living with the Rebers until the new trial, or would he at least get *some* prison time?

 

 

My understanding is that defendants don't have a constitutional right to bail after a conviction, so in many cases, defendants remain in jail during a federal appeals process.

The exceptions tend to be for non-violent crimes where the court determines that the flight risk is minimal, and where the court agrees that the appeal isn't frivolous and is about something that could potentially change the outcome of a new trial.

I have no idea if the court will agree that any of that applies to Josh, or if Josh even has the money/resources to appeal the verdict. 

[GeeGolly]

2 hours ago, Absolom said:

I only see two upsides to Josh taking this to trial: 1) hoping for a wild hare jury that doesn't find him guilty and 2) maintaining his appeal rights.  

I would add a third one: Continuing to maintain his innocence in the public eye and within the Fundy circle.

He removes the excuses of being framed or wrongly convicted if he pleas.

[MargeGunderson]

I think he could try to frame a plea as sparing his wife and children, and that he was persecuted for his beliefs, so like Jesus, he would be a martyr. I mean, it’s not believable and is truly insulting, but I wouldn’t put it past him to try to spin a plea like this.

Edited November 9, 2021 by MargeGunderson

[iwantcookies]

https://www.nwahomepage.com/northwest-arkansas-news/prosecution-seeks-bank-records-in-josh-duggar-child-porn-case-defense-requests-witnesses-excluded/?fbclid=IwAR2YCOLBWrbuKLTG0UMa-W_PG0YYBNz98bqWUernmiNiXLt5tfXIG2h07vM

[Zella]

2 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

I think he could try to frame a plea as sparing his wife and children, and that he was persecuted for his beliefs, so like Jesus, he would be a martyr. I mean, it’s not believable and is truly insulting, but I wouldn’t put it past him to try to spin a plea like this.

I think if Josh pleads, he will do so without explanation. Josh is nowhere near as smart or smooth as he thinks he is (and his self-preservation instincts are much stronger than Jesus's), but I think he's perfectly aware that he's not sparing anyone at this point and that nobody except maybe his delusional wife or parents are dense enough to buy that flimsy excuse.

I don't think he's beyond bullshitting them, but also I really don't think he gives a flying fuck about anyone but himself. Not his wife or his children or his parents or his sisters (who are facing the very real possibility of being retraumatized by the molestations being brought up in court or at least being bombarded with assholes asking them about it on social media).

I know that's not news to any of us here, but I also think he probably finds it weirdly liberating to not have to pretend to give a fuck anymore. If a statement ends up being released in which he displays any semblance of remorse or concern for anyone else, my immediate assumption would be someone's paralegal wrote it for him and then he just said "whatever." 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Zella

[CandyCaneTree]

4 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

Are we taking bets on this yet? My money is on Josh taking a plea at some point during the trial. 

I'll bet you that he won't plea out. The golden boy will never admit to doing anything wrong. 

[hathorlive]

22 hours ago, FizzyPuff said:

If anyone is interested Dr Oz did a show about Josh: 

 

I love that all these outlets that did the "oh look at the freaky fundy family from Arkansas with a bundle of kids" segments are now doing hit pieces on them.   The Anderson Cooper bit was the worst piece of sh!t I've ever seen.  No hard questions, nothing but the silly questions like "what's it like having a lot of siblings?"  "Who does the laundry".  Now they see the intrinsic danger of Gothardism.  Too bad none of them did any work on the earlier pieces. 

[Heathen]

6 hours ago, CandyCaneTree said:

I'll bet you that he won't plea out. The golden boy will never admit to doing anything wrong. 

I can see Smuggar taking an Alford plea or pleading guilty "to save his family the stress of a trial and promote healing," or some such bullshit. If so, he'll shade it in such a way that he seems like the magnanimous one. 

[SMama]

9 minutes ago, Heathen said:

I can see Smuggar taking an Alford plea or pleading guilty "to save his family the stress of a trial and promote healing," or some such bullshit. If so, he'll shade it in such a way that he seems like the magnanimous one. 

Someone with legal knowledge stated Alford pleas are very rare in federal court, and not for this type of charges

[Heathen]

3 minutes ago, SMama said:

Someone with legal knowledge stated Alford pleas are very rare in federal court, and not for this type of charges

Rare does not equal impossible. So he'll take a plea "for the sake of his family." 

 

[ginger90]

The sentence would be the same as if he entered a guilty plea, from my understanding.

[GeeGolly]

I wonder if the prosecutors would agree to an Alford plea at this point. I don't know what goes through the minds of prosecutors, but the defense lawyers are certainly making them dot their Is and cross their Ts (as they should). Maybe they'll want to take it to trial at this point.

[mythoughtis]

I think Josh has no real clue what sitting through a trial as the defendant is like. Once the prosecution puts on their case, he’s going to be having panic attacks.  The looks on the faces of the jury and his family alone will be utterly shocking to him.  Sitting through the  testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses won’t be like sitting at church getting his knuckles rapped.  He’s liable to plead guilty just to ‘make it stop, just make it stop’. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by mythoughtis

[MargeGunderson]

I don’t think Josh would want to take a plea, but I do think JB will push for him to do so if JB perceives that the trial is not going Josh’s way.

[Churchhoney]

34 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I wonder if the prosecutors would agree to an Alford plea at this point. I don't know what goes through the minds of prosecutors, but the defense lawyers are certainly making them dot their Is and cross their Ts (as they should). Maybe they'll want to take it to trial at this point.

The judge can deny an Alford plea, too. Some deny them because they don't think it's right to allow a particular defendant to move on without acknowledging their guilt. Seems within the realm of possibility for this judge to feel that way about Josh in this case, I think. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Churchhoney

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

I think Josh has no real clue what sitting through a trial as the defendant is like. Once the prosecution puts on their case, he’s going to be having panic attacks.  The looks on the faces of the jury and his family alone will be utterly shocking to him.  Sitting through the  testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses won’t be like sitting at church getting his knuckles rapped.  He’s liable to plead guilty just to ‘make it stop, just make it stop’. 

Oh he has no clue.   And he has to just SIT THERE.   He can't make faces, he can't interject, he can't do anything.   Hardest part for someone sitting through a hearing is NOT reacting.   Because yes, a judge CAN -- and WILL -- use any reaction he makes against him.   Rolling eyes, shaking his head, anything.   And Josh is too full of himself to control himself.   

 

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I wonder if the prosecutors would agree to an Alford plea at this point. I don't know what goes through the minds of prosecutors, but the defense lawyers are certainly making them dot their Is and cross their Ts (as they should). Maybe they'll want to take it to trial at this point.

The prosecutors don't care this much.   It's just another case to them.   So if they can get one case off their desk with a plea deal and its a reasonable plea deal they will do it.   They are not emotionally invested in the case.   If what has been posted in this thread is true, this only one of many cases regarding CSM making it way through the courthouse.   They will just move to the next one.

[ozziemom]

Will Smuggar be able to keep the smugness off his face? That alone could make the jury want to convict him. And if Anna is in the courtroom, she better wipe the smug look off her face too.

[Zella]

I don't think the prosecutors are inclined to give him any sort of an out, including an Alford plea. Why would they? He already had an out that he didn't take. They seem to have a pretty solid case, and if anything, they've added a bunch of motions that are going to make him even more uncomfortable since he turned down the plea. It reads to me like a highly professional version of "Wish you'd taken the plea now, bitch? Too late, too bad, so sad." I think they're more than happy to make him and his legal team squirm. If he wants to make a plea now, he's not dictating terms. He's at their mercy, and they know it and his lawyers know it, even if he's not smart enough to realize it. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Zella

[LazyToaster]

1 hour ago, ozziemom said:

Will Smuggar be able to keep the smugness off his face? That alone could make the jury want to convict him. And if Anna is in the courtroom, she better wipe the smug look off her face too.

I can’t see either of them even aware that they need to do this.  They would be shocked it someone asked them to monitor their expressions. OTOH If masks are required in the courtroom it will be a big help to them. 
 

[GeeGolly]

To be honest I would have a hard time being quiet and expression free in a courtroom, whether I was a lawyer, defendant, witness, judge or juror. When I watch on TV, following a case or seeing snippets of cases like on Dateline, I'm always thinking, wait, what, I need more info, or you've got to be fucking kidding me. And of course I also play lawyer objecting to questions as well. And as a witness I'd wanna be like, uhm don't provoke me, just ask the question.

I'd be a prosecution attorney's worst nightmare. Mistrial! lol

[MargeGunderson]

I’m pretty sure that Smuggar’s smugness is a permanent fixture on his face at this point.

[Tikichick]

On 11/6/2021 at 12:07 PM, quarks said:

Oh, I think it helps the prosecution's argument. I mean, the person who just happened to be in the location where CSA was being downloaded just happens to be the same person who molested his sisters, something his sisters confirmed on national television - even as they downplayed what happened and the significance? Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?

But I don't know if the prosecution will be allowed to show that interview in court. The defense is arguing that this all happened when Josh was a juvenile, and he's now in his 30s, and that the trial needs to focus on the current allegations, not on what Josh may or may not have done in the past. I have no idea how the judge is going to rule on this.

 

I don't see how that interview comes in under the court rules about evidence.   Since JB didn't witness the event it is still considered hearsay.

If Josh had made that statement in an interview it could come in as an out of court admission by a party opponent, especially because there would be video evidence of Josh making such a statement  that could be presented to the jury.

[Tikichick]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:34 PM, Dianaofthehunt said:

Isn’t pleading the 5th Amendment a subrosa way of saying “I’m guilty?”

No.   Jurors are instructed that a defendant is afforded the right to remain silent and that choosing to exercise that right cannot be held against them.

[quarks]

51 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I don't see how that interview comes in under the court rules about evidence.   Since JB didn't witness the event it is still considered hearsay.

If Josh had made that statement in an interview it could come in as an out of court admission by a party opponent, especially because there would be video evidence of Josh making such a statement  that could be presented to the jury.

Sure, but I'm not talking about the interview Megyn Kelly did with JB and Michelle, but about the interview that Megyn Kelly did with Jessa and Jill, two victims and direct witnesses to Josh's behavior. And Josh did make some sort of statement in May 2015, admitting to "acting inexcusably" as a teen, reported by the Family Research Council, the Washington Post and other media outlets. * 

It's also not at all clear what the government will be introducing or trying to introduce as evidence for this. In their words:

"If introduced, the government anticipates that the evidence will consist of testimony that the defendant was investigated for, admitted to, and received counseling for touching and sexually molesting multiple minor females." 

(From this link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqmfmw2htdwvo84/GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT EVIDEN.pdf?dl=0 )

So it sounds to me as if the government isn't planning on introducing any hearsay based evidence, but instead plans to subpoena direct witnesses to the investigation, the admission and the counseling. 

Also, the motion from the defense doesn't mention hearsay, and that doesn't seem to be the main basis for their objection/recent motion. Their motion focuses on relevancy and unfair prejudice. As they point out, the allegations happened when Josh was a minor, and he is now in his 30s; Josh is currently charged with computer crimes, and the previous allegations did not involve computers; and that learning about this would be unfairly prejudicial to a jury. In their words:

"There is no question the allegations at issue arise at a time when Duggar was a minor and the allegations at issue in this case arise at a time when Duggar was in his 30’s. Furthermore, there is no question Duggar was never charged with a crime related to those allegations."

"Despite the fact that the indictment focuses on a three-day period in May 2019 and focuses entirely on computer crimes, the Government seeks to introduce allegations arising when Duggar was a teenager that have nothing to do with computer-based conduct."

"If the jury were to hear about the allegations lodged against Duggar when he was a minor, an unacceptable risk exists that the jury would convict him in this case, not because the Government has proven him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the jury would improperly conclude that the prior allegations against Duggar somehow make it more likely that he committed the charged offenses in this case."

(From this link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnyh9n8rvyc0iyw/DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF JUVENILE ALLEGATIONS.pdf?dl=0 )

Nothing about hearsay. Which isn't to say that it won't come up, just that this doesn't seem to be the argument the defense is making right now.

(Maybe they should!)

 

* This is separate from the August 2015 statement about the Ashley Madison and adult pornography stuff, described by Josh Duggar's attorneys as "attributed to" Josh Duggar. The defense is also trying to have this statement excluded, again on the basis of relevance. 

[GeeGolly]

If the case is such a slam dunk, why does the prosecution want to take a chance introducing prior bad acts?

[quarks]

39 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

If the case is such a slam dunk, why does the prosecution want to take a chance introducing prior bad acts?

The government explains that in the motion I linked to above.

The prosecution believes that the defense is going to try to argue at trial that Josh was not the person who used the HP computer to downloaded the CSA and that Josh is not interested in CSA material.  They want to counter the second part of this defense by introducing evidence that Josh had a prior interest in CSA material.

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

Sure, but I'm not talking about the interview Megyn Kelly did with JB and Michelle, but about the interview that Megyn Kelly did with Jessa and Jill, two victims and direct witnesses to Josh's behavior. And Josh did make some sort of statement in May 2015, admitting to "acting inexcusably" as a teen, reported by the Family Research Council, the Washington Post and other media outlets. * 

It's also not at all clear what the government will be introducing or trying to introduce as evidence for this. In their words:

"If introduced, the government anticipates that the evidence will consist of testimony that the defendant was investigated for, admitted to, and received counseling for touching and sexually molesting multiple minor females." 

(From this link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqmfmw2htdwvo84/GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT EVIDEN.pdf?dl=0 )

So it sounds to me as if the government isn't planning on introducing any hearsay based evidence, but instead plans to subpoena direct witnesses to the investigation, the admission and the counseling. 

Also, the motion from the defense doesn't mention hearsay, and that doesn't seem to be the main basis for their objection/recent motion. Their motion focuses on relevancy and unfair prejudice. As they point out, the allegations happened when Josh was a minor, and he is now in his 30s; Josh is currently charged with computer crimes, and the previous allegations did not involve computers; and that learning about this would be unfairly prejudicial to a jury. In their words:

"There is no question the allegations at issue arise at a time when Duggar was a minor and the allegations at issue in this case arise at a time when Duggar was in his 30’s. Furthermore, there is no question Duggar was never charged with a crime related to those allegations."

"Despite the fact that the indictment focuses on a three-day period in May 2019 and focuses entirely on computer crimes, the Government seeks to introduce allegations arising when Duggar was a teenager that have nothing to do with computer-based conduct."

"If the jury were to hear about the allegations lodged against Duggar when he was a minor, an unacceptable risk exists that the jury would convict him in this case, not because the Government has proven him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the jury would improperly conclude that the prior allegations against Duggar somehow make it more likely that he committed the charged offenses in this case."

(From this link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnyh9n8rvyc0iyw/DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF JUVENILE ALLEGATIONS.pdf?dl=0 )

Nothing about hearsay. Which isn't to say that it won't come up, just that this doesn't seem to be the argument the defense is making right now.

(Maybe they should!)

 

* This is separate from the August 2015 statement about the Ashley Madison and adult pornography stuff, described by Josh Duggar's attorneys as "attributed to" Josh Duggar. The defense is also trying to have this statement excluded, again on the basis of relevance. 

Interesting.  I'm not following what's going on in depth, or really beyond occasionally reading this thread actually.  The comment I saw here only mentioned JB's comments in the MK interview, which is what I based my comment on. 

I have no idea what is common in these cases in a federal setting, but from what I'm used to seeing in cases here I wouldn't be surprised to see the judge rule to prevent anything about the prior molestation allegations from coming in. 

I am going to be interested to see if we get some detailed information during the case about how they present the information about the partitioning of the computer and the Covenant Eyes software to the jury.  I expect it will be presented simply as something that was done to prevent detection by others (partitioning) and something done as a matter of adhering to expectations of a faith-based marriage (Covenant Eyes) without giving any further background as to past history.