Past Molestation Evidence Allowed In Josh Duggar Child Porn Trial
A federal judge says that jurors can hear evidence that the former reality TV star molested four girls nearly 20 years ago.
Past Molestation Evidence Allowed In Josh Duggar Child Porn Trial
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
He's toast. The "prior bad acts" evidence goes in because he questioned the ID of who actually downloaded the child porn images. The fact that it was his computer makes that an unlikely argument to succeed. But the prior admission is the icing on the cake. Look for a long jail sentence for this loser.
I would make a shitty judge. " a Duggar family friend who testified in a pre-trial hearing Monday that Duggar told her in 2003 that he molested four girls " is not evidence that it really happened. Is the witness credible ? Could she have misunderstood Duggar ? How do we know if Dugger was sober when he said it, or that he wasn't pulling a sick prank. Unless you can produce an eye witness to corroborate the events - how can it be determined to be factual ?
I wouldn't let the jury hear this statement. This is a 20 year sentence if convicted - you can't let the determining factor be unsubstantiated gossip. I would think this undermines the prosecution case by giving a reason to appeal a guilty verdict. If evidence is presented that is unsubstantiated - there is no way to determine how much it factored in the guilty decision of the jury. They have a strong case (on my uneducated glance) so keep this out. If this hearsay evidence is the only strong evidence - I wouldn't have brought charges. So says the guy in the peanut gallery.
Isn't Perry Mason floating around here ? What's his take ?
I wouldn't let the jury hear this statement. This is a 20 year sentence if convicted - you can't let the determining factor be unsubstantiated gossip. I would think this undermines the prosecution case by giving a reason to appeal a guilty verdict. If evidence is presented that is unsubstantiated - there is no way to determine how much it factored in the guilty decision of the jury. They have a strong case (on my uneducated glance) so keep this out. If this hearsay evidence is the only strong evidence - I wouldn't have brought charges. So says the guy in the peanut gallery.
Isn't Perry Mason floating around here ? What's his take ?
If it was a third party it would be hearsay, but if she is claiming he himself told her that, it isn't. It is allowed. That said, they will do everything in their power to discredit her. With the publicity, maybe one of those girls will come forward. If ANY of it is true, he should be in jail.
"If any of it is true, he should be in jail" is why there is a trial. "He told me himself" is automatically accepted as a fact ? Any person with a grudge or a predisposition against the accused can simply say - yeah, he told me he actually did worse things and you would nod your head and say - yeah, proves my case - hang him ! Yes, if one of the girls came forward it would be helpful - if there are any actual girls to come forward. There is no proof with this statement.
I'm not questioning his guilt - I'm questioning the source of this evidence against him. Let's remove the disgusting nature of the crime and apply the same rules of evidence to any other court case. You are in court fighting a traffic violation - I come into court and tell the judge - She told me that she routinely speeds through school zones 100 kph over the limit and struck 4 kids while doing it. According to your theory, this deliberate fabrication should be considered when assessing your guilt.
I'm only in the peanut gallery but it does not seem like a valid source of evidence. You are accepting unproven facts as evidence.
Here's how it works.
Normally evidence of any other bad behaviour is strictly forbidden at a criminal trial where the jury is supposed to focus on only the substance of the facts charged. There are exceptions to this rule. One exception is where the accused himself raises a specific excuse that the prior bad behaviour would undermine.
So Duggar says: "It's my computer, but a pervert borrowed it and downloaded kiddie porn while I was at a meeting. I had no idea that kiddie porn was on my computer. It was that pervert."
Then a Crown witness says: "But you confessed to molesting kiddies 10 years earlier." It's unlikely that there would be two pedophiles at the same office. So that strongly suggests that Duggar in fact downloaded the kiddie porn on his computer and not some unknown 3rd party. So it specifically goes to refute the defence.
The person to whom D made the statement has to attend the trial and be cross-examined. And then the jury considers if she is believable, especially given the long lapse of time. The defence counsel can ask all the same questions that you brought up.
You are correct. The DA cannot simply recite gossip. The recipient of the statement has to attend and give first hand info of the occurrence. Otherwise, it is excluded as hearsay.
Character witnesses/witnesses are common. If you were fighting a traffic violation and let's say someone walking their dog watched it all happen, and said in your defense at the trial (traffic violations don't generally go to trial but whatever, you made the comparison so let's run with it), "They did not run that red light", your case would likely get tossed out, because that witness has no motive to lie. So, yes, witnesses literally swear an oath before you testify in court and they do take your word. It is up to the prosecuter to discredit.
Never fear. For a small and entirely reasonable retainer, I will enter a plea of insanity at your loitering trial and win your acquittal.I will relent with my objection to my esteemed legal colleges Ms Jasmina & Mr Mandrill because they out number me and I'm terrified that they will make up slanderous claims of my confessions of flagrant destruction of property at my upcoming loitering trial.
Yeah, this loitering charge is totally bogus - you'll make mince meat out of them. Hey, any chance of a different venue for the trial ?Never fear. For a small and entirely reasonable retainer, I will enter a plea of insanity at your loitering trial and win your acquittal.
I don't want to lose my park bench.
I find that if you offer the judge an all expenses paid (travel included) week, he or she will be open to a change of venue to either Jamaica or Cancun. Your choice.Yeah, this loitering charge is totally bogus - you'll make mince meat out of them. Hey, any chance of a different venue for the trial ?
I don't want to lose my park bench.
