Josh Duggar trial day 2. This will be the updates thread, and probably not have much until after 5 pm CST. Here is a link. Significant update several posts down.

[Katy]

@Faith-manor I agree KJ is potentially problematic. I was specifically discussing her theory about why Austin was so angry.  

I don’t like her click bait titles that are usually about speculation not facts but the idea that she never has a source is ridiculous. I’m fine watching videos and supporting anyone whose goal is to take down the ATI. 

[AnotherNewName]

16 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

It doesn't open up an avenue of appeal. This is a federal case not state. Federal statute 414 allows for this. All the prosecution has to show is a preponderance of the evidence that the past allegations were true to be allowed. They have Jbob and Michelle's Primetime Megan Kelly interview admissions, Josh written admission, a police report admission, the cop in jail for 54 years admission, the girls interviews, the letter sent to Oprah which started the dumpster fire, and Bobbye Golf's testimony plus Jill agreed to testify which means there is pre-trial deposition from a victim. They have plenty of evidence. Judge Brooks is very experienced. Rule 414 has been invoked in other cases many times before. We just never hear about it because those cases are not minor celebrities and celebrities.

Appeal overturns of federal convictions for these crimes is exceedingly rare. Federal judges are way more experienced and seasoned than most state judges so less likely to make a mistake, and federal prosecutors are the rock stars of the legal world. Their conviction rates are huge, and on CSAM are usually as close to a slam dunk as you can get.

 

You are wrong.  Federal Statute 414 allows for prior bad acts to be allowed in a trial, but there are certain criteria a judge is supposed to take into consideration.  An appeal can certainly be filed on this.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  And don't say "we" have never heard about this.  I have more familiarity with 414 than you do.

If you think federal judges don't get overturned on appeal even on CASM cases, I am not sure what else to say.  

 

 

[AnotherNewName]

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

Not in federal cases about sex crimes for children. If you go back and look at the transcripts the judge referred to several rulings that said history must be included.  

And there have been rulings by other federal judges which have excluded history. 

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

 Federal judges are way more experienced and seasoned than most state judges so less likely to make a mistake, and federal prosecutors are the rock stars of the legal world. Their conviction rates are huge, and on CSAM are usually as close to a slam dunk as you can get.

 

Who told you this?  It may be true on average, but there are many inexperienced federal judges in the system.  It is not unheard of for federal judges who with no judicial experience and limited courtroom experience to be nominated and confirmed.

Edited December 2, 2021 by AnotherNewName

[Katy]

16 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

And there have been rulings by other federal judges which have excluded history. 

Apparently since the rule change it’s only been overturned for not including history.

[AnotherNewName]

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

Apparently since the rule change it’s only been overturned for not including history.

We will have to see what happens after a verdict is reached.  Again, I don't think this will change the ultimate outcome even if an appeal is successful.

[Rebel]

I went to the link and then to the main subreddit when I saw it had been deleted. There is speculation there about what happened to the J is for Jail reporter, because the entire account is gone.

[freesia]

I thought the prior behavior was only going to be presented if the defense had a character defense—it would only be in response to any claims he was a good guy. I don’t see how that would get anything overturned. 
 

Does anyone know why there are only 2 counts against him? Also, as horrific as the evidence was yesterday, I thought that there were videos of much younger children. Was that just a rumor or maybe there’s not the iPhone evidence of him being there to corroborate it?  

[Faith-manor]

12 minutes ago, freesia said:

I thought the prior behavior was only going to be presented if the defense had a character defense—it would only be in response to any claims he was a good guy. I don’t see how that would get anything overturned. 
 

Does anyone know why there are only 2 counts against him? Also, as horrific as the evidence was yesterday, I thought that there were videos of much younger children. Was that just a rumor or maybe there’s not the iPhone evidence of him being there to corroborate it?  

Yes. The two charges cover two different sets of downloads. One download was a big dump of images. The other was the twice downloaded video.

Written descriptions of the video of the youngest children and images of younger children have been provided by the prosecution. These things are beyond horrific. Jurors have been told about the other stuff by Kalmer and Faulkner. They are trying to spare the worst images from being handed to the jury due to trauma, and due to the fact that ultimately the jury is being forced to view CSAM. Think about that. You a law abiding, decent human who finds this gross and vile, as a juror is forced to look at it. Forget crime scene videos, this is some of the worst stuff a juror can ever be forced to see. So they picked some of the images from the dump, and some clips from the video in order to prove to the jury that CSAM was downloaded, it is in fact CSAM and not legal, adult stuff. But, they do not have to go further than that because the charge is the same whether or not the image is of a 7 year old or a baby. There is no age gradation, the charge gets worse, the sentence guideline gets worse type thing.

That said, they could make them view more if they wanted to do so.

Jurors were provided individual screens, nothing was shown to the gallery. This makes sense to me. Not only do the victims of these crimes deserve privacy and are minors, this prevents making CSAM consumers of every person in that courtroom.

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

I have to admit I am a bit perplexed by the judge allowing Josh's prior history into the trial.  It seems to me to be more prejudicial than probative and imo opens up an avenue for appeal. Generally, there has to be a more of a direct connection or pattern of behavior that connects the prior act to the crimes the defendant is currently facing.  The judge is allowing a tenuous tie between uncharged crimes as a youth to be used to support the accusation that he has downloaded CSAM.  What he did as a teen does not prove that he was in possession of material as an adult, and to me it gives the jury an out to accept less compelling evidence from the state and still bring back a charge of guilty.

Based on what I have read the case should be strong enough without the prior bad acts. It likely doesn't matter in the end as I would expect him to lose at retrial, but I don't like it when judges give this much of an edge to the prosecution without a better foundation.

The plan that as I understand it is to introduce it only if the defense tries to use his character as a defense - if they try to say he's not the type of person to be into this stuff THEN the prosecution can and would introduce the past history to say, "yes, actually, he is that kind of person". 

[Faith-manor]

32 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

The plan that as I understand it is to introduce it only if the defense tries to use his character as a defense - if they try to say he's not the type of person to be into this stuff THEN the prosecution can and would introduce the past history to say, "yes, actually, he is that kind of person". 

The audio clips played in court yesterday were pretty damaging and maybe opened the door. Not sure.

I think this is a classic case of narcissism, malignant narcissism. He is so smug, so sure he is untouchable, that he couldn't keep is yap shut on self a incrimination. I think his own voluntary statement may have opened the door.

Also, I am linking this for some quotes of yesterday's testimony. I don't normally use buzzfeed. But they appear to be using direct quotes of witnesses and lawyers in the trial. I think they would be in trouble if they were making it up. However, if any of you think it is unreliable, I am happy to delete the link. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolefallert/josh-duggar-child-sexual-abuse-trial

Edited December 2, 2021 by Faith-manor

[maize]

13 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

I saw his mugshot.  He has no shame - he was smirking in it.

I don't like this kind of judgment based on expression. People have different still face expressions; my still face tends to get interpreted as a smirk. Has nothing to do with what I am feeling inside, that's just the way my facial features are.

Got me in so much trouble as a kid and there was nothing I could do about it.

Feel free to judge JD on his behavior; there's plenty of that to judge.

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

snip

It is, in my mind, no coincidence that JB is in a sex cult, promotes a sex cult, has a deviant son he refused to protect his daughter's from, and is friends with sex offenders as well as has employed them. I believe JB himself whether he has acted on it or not has a major problem with sex addiction of some kind or even worse.  

I'd rather forget the ON CAMERA, and in front of their kids, behavior he engaged in with M at a mini-golf course.   

There's a reason he's creepy.

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

The plan that as I understand it is to introduce it only if the defense tries to use his character as a defense - if they try to say he's not the type of person to be into this stuff THEN the prosecution can and would introduce the past history to say, "yes, actually, he is that kind of person". 

My understanding is that changed, and the prosecution can introduce it as they choose.  The way you are describing it is how I would expect it to be normally entered.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Who told you this?  It may be true on average, but there are many inexperienced federal judges in the system.  It is not unheard of for federal judges who with no judicial experience and limited courtroom experience to be nominated and confirmed.

We have a good family friend that is a barrister.

He's made comments about Federal Judges.  (he's been before both.)

 

12 minutes ago, maize said:

I don't like this kind of judgment based on expression. People have different still face expressions; my still face tends to get interpreted as a smirk. Has nothing to do with what I am feeling inside, that's just the way my facial features are.

Got me in so much trouble as a kid and there was nothing I could do about it.

Feel free to judge JD on his behavior; there's plenty of that to judge.

You can dislike it all you want.  I had a visceral response of disgust to his expression. 

I've ignored that mom-gut warning too many times over the years because "oh, that's so judgmental, that's not nice" etc.  Frankly - when the hair on the back of my neck is standing up, and the flags are flying - I've learned to listen to those. Even if other people think it's "not nice".