Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Zella]

Per the Sun, his own lawyers are throwing Josh's education under the bus. I bet Jim Bob really appreciates that defense strategy.

Quote

 

They also claimed that some command codes involved are "complicated," and noted that Josh was homeschooled by Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and at 16 got his GED.

The defense cast doubt on Josh having the education to know what the command codes involved were, according to a Sun reporter present at the trial.

 

 

[hathorlive]

21 minutes ago, cereality said:

Damn Derick is there today - per the Sun live blog; sitting in the family section - which is mildly weird if you are opposed to the defendant, you'd sit someplace else. Though I haven't been in court recently, could still have covid rules re who sits where/empty seats etc.

LOL...this could be the biggest FU of all time.  Josh can't demand he move and Josh knows Derrick is NOT there to support. He's probably there to gather first hand information.  Good for him. 

[cereality]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

Per the Sun, his own lawyers are throwing Josh's education under the bus. I bet Jim Bob really appreciates that defense strategy.

 

LOL. This is where a family witness like Jill would really be helpful later on - to paint a picture of how this family really is. Sure he has no education and only a GED. Yet wasn't this kid the golden child who always got what he wanted from JB & Michelle - he always had top of the line laptops, cameras etc. He had plenty of access to self teach himself how to get to the dark web etc. and you don't need a formal education for that.

[SusanM]

9 minutes ago, Zella said:

The defense cast doubt on Josh having the education to know what the command codes involved were, according to a Sun reporter present at the trial.

What's funny here is that their other big strategy appears to be making the jury believe various random, AFAIK equally ill educated men would have had the ability to (a) know the command codes involved and (b) know they needed to bypass that Covenant Eye (?) thing on the computer in the first place.   Of course it's not up to the defense to prove how someone else could have done it but sheesh!

[Nysha]

31 minutes ago, Trillium said:

I don’t care as long as they bleed JB dry. 

Since I can no longer deal with the cognitive dissonance that JB & I are part of the same species, I'm taking a line from the FLDS - I want them to bleed the beast.

[Iguessnot]

Interesting. Although it says Anna was in the front row, the Sun reporter is saying she wasn't present when the abuse materials were shown. I wonder when she stepped out?

[hathorlive]

30 minutes ago, questionfear said:

There were two lines of issues with Bobye Holt-one was "is this discussion of past acts admissible" and the second was "Can Bobye Holt testify or is she seen as clergy". The defense was going with both prongs-it was inadmissible, and if it was admitted, Bobye was bound by confidentiality. 

IF Jill was on the list as a backup, it's because she has no confidentiality issues, so if the prior acts were acceptable but Bobye Holt was not, Jill was free and clear. 

JIll doesn't just have first hand knowledge, Jill is the victim of the suspect.  That carries a lot more weight than anything Josh told Mrs. Holt.  She's only a backup if Mrs. Holt was barred from testifying, per above.

[hathorlive]

13 minutes ago, cereality said:

LOL. This is where a family witness like Jill would really be helpful later on - to paint a picture of how this family really is. Sure he has no education and only a GED. Yet wasn't this kid the golden child who always got what he wanted from JB & Michelle - he always had top of the line laptops, cameras etc. He had plenty of access to self teach himself how to get to the dark web etc. and you don't need a formal education for that.

There are literally videos on YouTube that show you how to get on the dark web and how to install TOR.  We find videos that big time ring leaders send to street thugs about how to install TOR to commit identity theft.  So, no, it's not hard to install a LINUX partition and yes, Josh had his own Audio/Visual room filled with tech stuff.  Ewwwwww. I don't even want to know what he was doing in there.

[Nysha]

19 minutes ago, cereality said:

I get what you mean but isn't the goal here winning? So you have to convince the audience that matters - i.e. the judge. No matter what your manly man friends from "church" or state senate or wherever feel about it.

Winning in the long run doesn't always mean winning the battle at hand. JB may actually realize that his Golden Penis is going to be found guilty, but he's running for public office and this type of manly bravado may help him keep voters who are already suspicious of the government and the liberal media.

[libgirl2]

10 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

What's funny here is that their other big strategy appears to be making the jury believe various random, AFAIK equally ill educated men would have had the ability to (a) know the command codes involved and (b) know they needed to bypass that Covenant Eye (?) thing on the computer in the first place.   Of course it's not up to the defense to prove how someone else could have done it but sheesh!

There are children who know how to work with technology! 

[hathorlive]

8 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

 

Quote

During opening statements on Wednesday, Josh's defense team claimed that a partition found on the car lot computer was for a Dell user, claiming that Josh was not a Dell user but was "a Mac guy."

Hey high powered, expensive lawyer.  MAC OS is based on the HFS and HFS+ files systems and was originally based on FREEBSD, a Unix derivation.  So Macs are MUCH more like Linux than Windows machines.  Also, Dell isn't a type of OS. It's a computer brand.  I'm not really impressed with these guys as of yet. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by hathorlive

[Snow Fairy]

Notably, Anna Duggar, who is Josh Duggar's wife, was not present when the aforementioned video and images were shown to the jury, according to a Sun reporter present at the trial.

She should have been there, to see what kind of monster he is

 

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

Notably, Anna Duggar, who is Josh Duggar's wife, was not present when the aforementioned video and images were shown to the jury, according to a Sun reporter present at the trial.

She should have been there, to see what kind of monster he is

 

I agree. Sorry, but I would have made her watch it if I could. Maybe it would open her eyes to the monster he is. The more this goes on the more I dislike her. 

[Boston]

Remember the good old days?

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Boston said:

Remember the good old days?

Yuck

[quarks]

51 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

I am wondering what bullshit his lawyers are going to use for his appeal? Nothing that they have tried to use so far none of it stuck. 

To be fair, the defense has won a couple of motions.

They've just lost most of the big ones.

My guess is that the main appeal with the best chance of success is the question of whether or not the original search and the resulting search warrants were legal.  This is a genuine point of contention in some legal circles, and they might be able to take that one to the Supreme Court. 

With the key word being might.

 

[Nysha]

That picture gives me the creeps. Anna may have been a legal and physical adult, but her maturity age was a lot closer to 12 than 21.

[SusanM]

6 minutes ago, quarks said:

My guess is that the main appeal with the best chance of success is the question of whether or not the original search and the resulting search warrants were legal.  This is a genuine point of contention in some legal circles, and they might be able to take that one to the Supreme Court.

Even if this line of appeal were to work what would forever be on the record is HE DID IT.  I'd hate him to get out of jail but at a minimum there would never be any doubt (outside fundie circles of course) that that was where he deserved to be.

Edited December 1, 2021 by SusannahM

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I am now cautiously saying 10 to 13 years.

That would be GREAT.   Somehow that double digit makes all difference in feeling he got what he deserves.

As for Jill testifying, I am sending good thoughts her way.   You don't have to like her beliefs to see her as a human being dealing with a really tough situation NOT of her own making.   I have a feeling that when her therapy has a breakthrough on not just the molestations but ALL the abuse she suffered at the hands of her parents both physical and mental, that breakthrough is going to be EPIC.   And not pretty.   

[Mindthinkr]

38 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

LOL...this could be the biggest FU of all time.  Josh can't demand he move and Josh knows Derrick is NOT there to support. He's probably there to gather first hand information.  Good for him. 

I expect he was there to support Jill. Good for him for standing by his wife. Plus he is probably interested in the legal aspects having gone to law school. 
 

I also found it interesting (per the Sun’s article) that Anna was not in the courtroom when the CP was shown to the jury. I wonder if she just wants to remain ignorant or Josh asked for her to leave. 

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, Mindthinkr said:

I expect he was there to support Jill. Good for him for standing by his wife. Plus he is probably interested in the legal aspects having gone to law school. 
 

I also found it interesting (per the Sun’s article) that Anna was not in the courtroom when the CP was shown to the jury. I wonder if she just wants to remain ignorant or Josh asked for her to leave. 

I forgot about him having gone to law school. Maybe this is an area he is interested in?

I get a feeling she chose to leave. Ignorance is bliss. 

[merylinkid]

Oh Anna left on purpose.   She has a built in excuse to bail -- she is breastfeeding.   She just conveniently needs to do it any time something hits too close to the truth.   She just leaves so she can remain blissfully ignorant that her Joshie is still the Chosen One and she will be his Queen.  

[Mindthinkr]

Just now, libgirl2 said:

Ignorance is bliss. 

That kind of ignorance could have devastating effects on her children. It would give her a better idea of just what her husband may be capable of doing to their children. She needs to know what to look out for and protect her girls. 

[hathorlive]

4 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

That would be GREAT.   Somehow that double digit makes all difference in feeling he got what he deserves.

As for Jill testifying, I am sending good thoughts her way.   You don't have to like her beliefs to see her as a human being dealing with a really tough situation NOT of her own making.   I have a feeling that when her therapy has a breakthrough on not just the molestations but ALL the abuse she suffered at the hands of her parents both physical and mental, that breakthrough is going to be EPIC.   And not pretty.   

I'm sending good thoughts to the judge.  I have to think that he's listened to the sisters talk about the stress and pain the In Touch article created.  He has to know they were the ones abused.  Josh is a contact offender.  I've cases where tons of CP got 10 years.  The contact offense should encourage him to go heavy, even if he can't  "factor" it into the sentence. 

I don't like a lot of what Baptists and other fundies believe. But no one deserves what she and her sisters have had to live with nearly 2 decades.  The dismissiveness of their parents, the forced forgiveness, the elevation of their abuser to a high status in the family.  I'm as mad at the parents as I am at Josh.  Jill should do what Jill needs to do.  I won't judge her for deciding she can't testify. It's hard for most survivors to do that.  I just hope her therapist, friends and Derrick are there to support her.  

4 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I forgot about him having gone to law school. Maybe this is an area he is interested in?

I get a feeling she chose to leave. Ignorance is bliss. 

I think when something like this hits close to home, you want to use your education to help other victims/survivors get justice.  I have friends who were sexually abused and that has driven me to stay in law enforcement, instead of going to the private section, where the salary is higher. I can see Derrick thinking this might be a good use of skills.  

[hathorlive]

3 minutes ago, Mindthinkr said:

That kind of ignorance could have devastating effects on her children. It would give her a better idea of just what her husband may be capable of doing to their children. She needs to know what to look out for and protect her girls. 

I just want to smash her face against the computer screen and say "this is what your godly husband does when you aren't at home, bitch".  What a f'ing coward she is. 

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, Mindthinkr said:

That kind of ignorance could have devastating effects on her children. It would give her a better idea of just what her husband may be capable of doing to their children. She needs to know what to look out for and protect her girls. 

Question is, does she even care? Does she believe it was just nothing? Or can they battle this with more prayer? 

[Rootbeer]

33 minutes ago, Nysha said:

Winning in the long run doesn't always mean winning the battle at hand. JB may actually realize that his Golden Penis is going to be found guilty, but he's running for public office and this type of manly bravado may help him keep voters who are already suspicious of the government and the liberal media.

If given a choice, JB would pick himself over any of his kids, including Josh, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I think he knew that by feigning poor memory, he wasn't going to be called to testify at trial in front of the jury and his behavior at the prelim wasn't going to matter.  And, that being the case, why not play up his manliness and lack of respect for the 'wrong kind' of authority represented by this court?

[Madtown]

3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I just want to smash her face against the computer screen and say "this is what your godly husband does when you aren't at home, bitch".  What a f'ing coward she is. 

A million times YES!!!! She is the biggest fucking coward! Get over it bitch, your husband is a disgusting pig of a human being and your children should be taken from you. Same with every child in the tator tot house! They should be gone too.
She should be forced to watch look at all pictures and videos. I don't know how the jury or attorneys or anyone else in that court room can look at that. Makes me wonder how Derick handled it? I know you and others that are lawyers here and have had these cases, described what that is like. Just horrific.

[SnapHappy]

11 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I can see Derrick thinking this might be a good use of skills.  

I can see him thinking this is a good way to say "Screw you, bud" to JB.  I don't ever see him using his legal education to help anybody but straight, white men that were "victims" of Affirmative action, and other liberal, un-American programs.  

[JustRosie]

Do juries deliberate on weekends?  Any idea how long it will take to get the verdict?  TYIA

[Ljohnson1987]

If you think Anna's mental age is around 12, what do you think about her sister, Priscilla? She definitely chugs the cult kool-aid. 

[hathorlive]

5 minutes ago, SnapHappy said:

I can see him thinking this is a good way to say "Screw you, bud" to JB.  I don't ever see him using his legal education to help anybody but straight, white men that were "victims" of Affirmative action, and other liberal, un-American programs.  

He was involved with a group at U of A where he provided legal aid to anyone who walked in the door.  His views are not the same as mine but he does seem to have empathy for people who can't fight back either based on age or disadvantaged state.  I guess time will tell.  But sitting there, seeing those images, may remind him that many people need help. 

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, Namaste said:

Do juries deliberate on weekends?  Any idea how long it will take to get the verdict?  TYIA

Typically, juries do not deliberate on weekends.  They deliberate during regular working hours of the courthouse and the judge handling the case.

 

Deliberations can take anywhere from an hour to weeks depending on the case in question. 

[JustRosie]

1 minute ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Typically, juries do not deliberate on weekends.  They deliberate during regular working hours of the courthouse and the judge handling the case.

 

Deliberations can take anywhere from an hour to weeks depending on the case in question. 

Thank you. 

[mythoughtis]

I do not think the reporter  is actually reporting live from the courtroom via a screen.  I think he/she taking notes, and is using the breaks to call someone and give a summary of the trial.  
they are not going to take your phone as you walk Into the courtroom.  But turn it off in the hallway and leave it in your pocket.  There will be issues if you are caught recording. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by mythoughtis

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Typically, juries do not deliberate on weekends.  They deliberate during regular working hours of the courthouse and the judge handling the case.

 

Deliberations can take anywhere from an hour to weeks depending on the case in question. 

I was on a drug case jury where we came to a decision at 530, the judge had already promised to do a quick wedding for a couple, and we had to wait for him to get back to the court room.  Then they  spend an hour or so collecting people back to the room. I think it was around 7pm before we got back to the court room.  And we were all about to pass out.  The officers were very nice, pulling out granola bars and cookies for us. They didn't expect a verdict and didn't have dinner for us.

[SnapHappy]

15 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

He was involved with a group at U of A where he provided legal aid to anyone who walked in the door.  His views are not the same as mine but he does seem to have empathy for people who can't fight back either based on age or disadvantaged state.  I guess time will tell.  But sitting there, seeing those images, may remind him that many people need help. 

Wasn't that an actual job between semesters? 

I have zero empathy for a man who viciously targeted a sexually transitioning teenager on social media & has done nothing but judge people.  I'm judging him now, so I say we're even.  

Regardless, he'll eventually practice some sort of law, or continue to flail about accomplishing little but obtaining useless degrees.  He's her choice for life, so good luck to her.  

Edited December 1, 2021 by SnapHappy

[Ohiopirate02]

5 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I was on a drug case jury where we came to a decision at 530, the judge had already promised to do a quick wedding for a couple, and we had to wait for him to get back to the court room.  Then they  spend an hour or so collecting people back to the room. I think it was around 7pm before we got back to the court room.  And we were all about to pass out.  The officers were very nice, pulling out granola bars and cookies for us. They didn't expect a verdict and didn't have dinner for us.

When I was a juror, the case wrapped up around 4 pm, and the judge decided that was enough for the day.  He decided to hold off sending us to deliberate until the next day.  We could have started deliberating that day if we were not constantly getting interrupted due to prior commitments from the judge, prosecution and I think the defense attorney, and an hour lunch break.  We were empaneled, sent back to the jury room while whoever did what they needed to do, heard opening arguments, sent back again due to whatever else had to be taken care of that day, heard the prosecution's case, broke for lunch, and finally heard the defense.  The actual case was maybe 3 hours, but it took the whole day.  Day two also had a lunch break.  This judge was not one to skip a meal.  

[Zella]

18 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

I do not think the reporter  is actually reporting live from the courtroom via a screen.  I think he/she taking notes, and is using the breaks to call someone and give a summary of the trial.  
they are not going to take your phone as you walk Into the courtroom.  But turn it off in the hallway and leave it in your pocket.  There will be issues if you are caught recording. 

I don't think this is reporting happening on breaks. If you keep refreshing the page, they don't come in chunks like a break. It unfolds pretty rapidly like it is a real-time update. I don't think there is any way there are that many breaks during the day for the updates to only be posted then.

If anything during the actual announced lunch break, the updates are filler. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Zella

[Tuxcat]

Quick question which I put under spoiler due to the sensitive nature relating to ages of the victims on the computer.

Spoiler

 The prosecution said "as young as seven" but I seem to recall at the earlier hearings that one of the victims was 18 months old?

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

SInce the Judge has admitted prior acts into court (about 4 hours ago) I suspect we'll see a lot of testimony by the sisters.    Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents expect their daughters to lie on the stand to protect their Golden Child Josh.    I don't think the parents and Anna would admit Josh did anything wrong, if they saw him doing something right in front of them.     I bet blame the victim will be a lifelong attitude of the parents, and the rest of the family. 

 

  

[StaceyNotStacie]

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

LOL...this could be the biggest FU of all time.  Josh can't demand he move and Josh knows Derrick is NOT there to support. He's probably there to gather first hand information.  Good for him. 

I wonder if he’s there taking notes to prepare Jill should she have to testify.  He is also most likely looking at things with a different eye since he has a law degree and knows how the family does things. 

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

SInce the Judge has admitted prior acts into court (about 4 hours ago) I suspect we'll see a lot of testimony by the sisters.    Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents expect their daughters to lie on the stand to protect their Golden Child Josh.    I don't think the parents and Anna would admit Josh did anything wrong, if they saw him doing something right in front of them.     I bet blame the victim will be a lifelong attitude of the parents, and the rest of the family. 

 

  

If they lie, they will perjure themselves and that will be a whole other can of doo doo. 

[hathorlive]

4 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Quick question which I put under spoiler due to the sensitive nature relating to ages of the victims on the computer.

  Hide contents

 The prosecution said "as young as seven" but I seem to recall at the earlier hearings that one of the victims was 18 months old?

 

That video was not one that was charged on.  I have a feeling that it's one that they can't tie directly to Josh, via activity on his phone, so it's better to not bring it up.  I've found terabytes of files and only had 7 charged.

[emmawoodhouse]

19 minutes ago, Nysha said:

There is no way Anna is ever going to admit that Sex Pest is capable of sexually assaulting his daughters like he did his sisters, let alone what happens in the CSAM he gets off on. Leaving the courtroom to feed the baby when that material is presented is her way of denying reality. Plus, the defense team may have requested her to do so in order to prevent the jury from seeing her reaction to the CSAM.

No way she could bring the baby to the courthouse. Who would watch her while Anna was playing Stand By Your Man in the courtroom? There was no sign of the baby when they entered or exited court yesterday, and that was a full day.

[hathorlive]

OH dear god.  40 year sentence?  Minimum of 25 years? Bittorrent is on the dark web?  I have got to stop listening to this stuff. 

I don't even know why I bother arguing with KJ. Her viewers are citing ages of the kids in  the videos, and mandatory minimums and all these "facts" that have never applied to any case I've had.

Edited to say that a someone said this judge gave a guy 17.5 years for CP.  I read the case file and it was a production case.  So, there is some hope I guess, that we may see 10 years.  Josh isn't charged for the sexual assaults' of the sisters, so I don't think he can take on extra years for that.  But hopefully he can give Josh the biggest sentence he can justify otherwise.

Edited December 1, 2021 by hathorlive

[Churchhoney]

Ever since this started, I've craved seeing Anna and Meeechelle forced into the Clockwork Orange eyes wide open scene for the courtroom display of images Josh likes to pleasure himself to.  

Knew it wouldn't happen, but maybe I can dream about it some time. They're craven, hypocritical cowards who love posting little piccies online about how much they cherish their own sweet grandbaby girls. Wouldn't surprise me, though, if neither of them has enough empathy and sense to be much disturbed at all by seeing vicious abuse perpetrated on a person who isn't one of their own.

Churchhoney, despising the Duggars since 2002. All this loathing has probably eaten half my own innards away by now, I suppose. Don't care. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Churchhoney

[cereality]

I don't see any sister testifying except possibly Jill. It's not like the sisters can just wander in now and say ok I want to testify now that the judge has said he'll allow it. It doesn't work like that - there are witness lists submitted in advance; only Jill is on it. Sure they can be amended but there will be all sorts of objections if they suddenly amend it to add 3 other Duggar sisters; nor does the gov't want to say oh judge we didn't think we'd win that motion in limine but now that we have, here they are. The gov't has likely reached out to the other sisters many times over months to get them to think about whether they'd testify - clearly they've said no. I mean without naming names one of the sisters and her husband are 100% financially dependent on JB given that they live in one of his homes so that ain't happening. The other 2 that I think it is seem traumatized and/or have repressed the memory in such a way that they aren't going to come forward and discuss in front of people.

And yeah Derick was in court today to see what's going on + see what the feeling is overall so he can prep Jill "mentally" for what to expect. The gov't will prep her testimony but he can prep her on - this is where Anna usually sits; if you look over there you'll see the jury and these ladies on the jury seem really sympathetic to victims so look at them when you speak; this is how the judge seems etc.

And it's total BS that JB and Michelle aren't there today AND Anna leaves whenever CP is shown. WTF morons. Get your heads out of the sand. This isn't - oh he's a godly man who just got curious teehee who hasn't done that, I don't need to see the Playboy to see what he looked at. No morons you NEED to see what he looked at to understand the enormity of this, how gross it is, and how you are choosing to stay with and keep procreating with and ponder whether a guy like that who has done stuff to his sisters + continues to look at little kids could do the same to YOUR kids!?  A

As for the poster who says they don't know how judges/lawyers do this - yeah CP cases suck across the board bc you do have to look at the files . . . .

Anna likely isn't breastfeeding in the courthouse but you know that's the excuse to step out any time she needs to not know what's going on for real - she just gave birth and is still "weak" and needs a rest; or needing to pump or whatever.

[merylinkid]

11 minutes ago, Stacey1014 said:

I wonder if he’s there taking notes to prepare Jill should she have to testify.  He is also most likely looking at things with a different eye since he has a law degree and knows how the family does things. 

I really really hope not.   Witnesses are NOT to know what is going on in the courtroom so they are not influenced by any prior testimony.   If she does get notes from Derrick she can't testify.   She WILL be asked if she discussed the case with anyone prior to testifying.   If she says yes, she's done testifying.   Period.   If she says no and it comes out later, ALL her testimony is tossed.   It might even be a mistrial and we get to do this all over again.

 

27 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

When I was a juror, the case wrapped up around 4 pm, and the judge decided that was enough for the day.  He decided to hold off sending us to deliberate until the next day.  We could have started deliberating that day if we were not constantly getting interrupted due to prior commitments from the judge, prosecution and I think the defense attorney, and an hour lunch break.  We were empaneled, sent back to the jury room while whoever did what they needed to do, heard opening arguments, sent back again due to whatever else had to be taken care of that day, heard the prosecution's case, broke for lunch, and finally heard the defense.  The actual case was maybe 3 hours, but it took the whole day.  Day two also had a lunch break.  This judge was not one to skip a meal.  

Yeah sounds  normal.   Stuff happens.    You get started, someone has to take a break.   You get back going and its lunch time.   Then you need a break.    the judge has meetings to go to (courthouse admin, comittee work, whatever).    

[Rootbeer]

22 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

When I was a juror, the case wrapped up around 4 pm, and the judge decided that was enough for the day.  He decided to hold off sending us to deliberate until the next day.  We could have started deliberating that day if we were not constantly getting interrupted due to prior commitments from the judge, prosecution and I think the defense attorney, and an hour lunch break.  We were empaneled, sent back to the jury room while whoever did what they needed to do, heard opening arguments, sent back again due to whatever else had to be taken care of that day, heard the prosecution's case, broke for lunch, and finally heard the defense.  The actual case was maybe 3 hours, but it took the whole day.  Day two also had a lunch break.  This judge was not one to skip a meal.  

That's pretty typical in my experience.  There are all sorts of breaks in the day and it is rare to put in a full day of work like you or I might expect.  I've been involved in trials where the judge also had criminal arraignments, meetings about other cases, various phone calls and assorted other stuff mixed in with the trial.  It wasn't unusual to start at 9 AM (seems pretty rare to start earlier), break at 10:30 or so for an hour for the judge to do arraignments and a bunch of prisoners brought in in chains.  Start again, go for an hour, break for an hour and a half for lunch.  15-30 minutes mid afternoon break and then finish for the day at 4:30.  Meanwhile, the attorneys have important phone calls and need a break or a witness is delayed or things go too fast and the next witness isn't there on time and so the day ends around 3 PM.

I would say at least 50% of the time at trial is wasted, from my experience. I had one trial that lasted 3 days, the jury came back in less than 15 minutes and the whole thing lasted less than 8 hours total.  The other would've taken 3 or 4 days in real time but stretched into 2 weeks.