(Possible CSA Warning) Josh & Anna 36: Waiting for the Trial

[Howl]

27 minutes ago, socalrules said:

He is not on trial for what he did to his sisters and the family friend.

What about sentencing? If (when) he is convicted, can this be introduced as part of the sentencing phase of the trial?

[AussieKrissy]

I missed why we suspect Anna has had the baby, perhaps I missed it in the previous thread that I have not finished reading yet

[Melissa1977]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

What about sentencing? If (when) he is convicted, can this be introduced as part of the sentencing phase of the trial?

A person cannot be sentenced without a trial, and a new fellony cannot be introduced during a trial. If evidences of a different crime, they need to set a new trial*. Anyway, he was a minor, so I very much doubt he could be sentenced for that, even in a new trial. Maybe JB and Michelle could, because they hide a crime, but one of the victims should sue them first, and it's not going to happen.

*I'm not in the US, but basic rules about law are very similar in EU/US. So I assume this one applies, too.

[socalrules]

It likely can be introduced at the sentencing phase but as evidence of his character. 

[sndral]

I’m not sure whether the Judge will admit the prior CSA evidence, in my mind it could go either way. IME unless you routinely appear in front of a Judge it’s impossible to predict their evidentiary rulings on close calls and even when you know a Judge well they can still surprise you w/ their rulings. 
I’d lean more strongly towards it not coming in if the prosecution were seeking admission solely based on rule 404(b) which deals with character/propensity evidence, but rule 414 specifically allows (but does not require) the Judge to admit evidence of prior CSA in CSA cases, so I wouldn’t be shocked if it came in, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Judge excluded it either.

Even w/out the prior CSA evidence, the case should be interesting to follow - especially if the defense is some other dude did it & the covenant eyes stuff comes in because what other person would know he had to set up the computer to not notify Anna when he wanted to download the CSA.

It is also possible that the Judge could initially exclude the evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief, but allow it in during the prosecution’s rebuttal case if the defendant opens the door by presenting certain defenses/evidence. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

39 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

I missed why we suspect Anna has had the baby, perhaps I missed it in the previous thread that I have not finished reading yet

DuggarData covered it here and here.

. 

[RosyDaisy]

7 hours ago, mpheels said:

This is where JB&M’s handling of the molestation will come back to bite them.  If they had gone through proper channels and sought real help for Josh, the behavior probable would never be public domain, and there would be real legal arguments against bringing his juvenile record into the discussion now. Since they tried and failed to cover it up, then tried to make it all better by coercing their adult daughters to discuss the abuse on national TV, it’s in the public domain. If Josh’s team is relying of proof of good character as his primary defense, the prosecutors should be allowed to bring it up as counter evidence.

I agree.  JB & M fucked up big time.  I hope it's a huge bite in the ass.  I also agree that his juvenile record should be used.  It's already in the public domain.  Also, this shit needs to be exposed.  I'm truly sorry what this will do the victims, but there is something greater at stake here.  Putting a pedophile behind bars so he has no more victims.  Also, abuse in this cult needs to be exposed and it's abusers brought down.  Maybe, just maybe, that will cause members to leave and make other families think twice about joining.

7 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Well…. If they’d gone through proper, official channels it probably would have come up - just sooner rather than later so we likely never would have heard of them outside of the 1st special or two. 

I don't believe for one second TLC/Discovery Networks didn't know.  Rumors about the Duggars have existed long before they came calling.  Besides they gave the Duggars a new show after they canceled 19KAC despite the fact most sponsors pulled their advertising.  And I'm not 100% convinced they are done with the Duggars.  They seem to have a hard on for the Duggars.

Edited November 4, 2021 by RosyDaisy

[anjulibai]

The prior CSA could be entered as evidence of sexual interest in children. 

[mpheels]

4 hours ago, sndral said:

It is also possible that the Judge could initially exclude the evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief, but allow it in during the prosecution’s rebuttal case if the defendant opens the door by presenting certain defenses/evidence. 

That’s what I was thinking. Josh’s team sets up a parade of evidence and witnesses to demonstrate his Godly countenance, which opens the door for the prosecutors to bring counter evidence of his character. They may not even need to bring up the abuse of his sisters. They could bring up Josh’s statements following the Ashley Madison reveal. Combined with the existence of covenant eyes on his work computer, it’s pretty good evidence that Josh’s own family had questions about his character.

[Sops2]

So they are blaming Joshua Williams for the downloading at the car lot ,and Josh's lawyers didn't know he was in jail at the time even though they themselves had defended him for the crime he was jailed for.

Nuts!

[QuiverFullofBooks]

6 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

I missed why we suspect Anna has had the baby, perhaps I missed it in the previous thread that I have not finished reading yet

JB’s campaign announcement said how many grandchildren he has, and he appears to be counting M7. 

[BensAllergies]

It’s too late to edit but in my skimming I  missed that the defense represented Joshua Williams in April 2019. I had read it as the defense realized they had represented him before, and separately that the Government submitted records proving he was in jail in May 2019.

So yes, the defense should have known.

Quote in spoiler:

Spoiler

Specifically, after the Government brought certain information to his attention, defense counsel advised the Court that he realized that he and one of the defendant’s other attorneys represented Mr. Williams in April of 2019 in connection with a criminal matter that resulted in Mr. Williams being sentenced by a Benton County Circuit Court Judge to serve 45 days in the county jail. Further, the Government provided the defense jail records confirming that Mr. Williams was in custody from April 15, 2019 to May 28, 2019.

 

I don’t think we will get to know the trial details while it’s happening due to the sensitive nature of the evidence and because it includes minors. Perhaps a redacted transcript will be released in the future. So in that regard the trial will likely be boring as we won’t know what’s going on. Maybe all we will have is video of Anna entering the building with or without her newborn on which to comment.

Edited November 4, 2021 by BensAllergies

[Idlewild]

@mpheels that’s how it would work in England.  Normally those accusations would be not relevant, but if the defendant tries to mislead the jury then the prosecution can apply to bring in bad character evidence to correct a misleading impression. 
Josh’s defence seem to be hoping for a jury comprised of the sort of people that like them on Instagram- I think it’d going to be a rude awakening.

No wonder JB is looking to his future - he must know Josh is screwed.

[Dandruff]

I'm guessing the folks at FRC aren't missing Josh a bit.  They still have their memories, though.

[NoKidsAndCounting]

I wonder if Anna's siblings and extended family members have been in touch with her, especially those that have left the IFB/IBLP situation.  Although maybe Anna wouldn't even talk to them, because she knows what they might say? 

[Howl]

12 hours ago, socalrules said:

It likely can be introduced at the sentencing phase but as evidence of his character. 

Yes, that's what I was referring to.  Legally, what he did as a teen is in the rear view mirror, but when he is sentenced, could it be introduced as supporting a long stay in the gray bar hotel?  

[Antimony]

13 hours ago, sndral said:

I’m not sure whether the Judge will admit the prior CSA evidence, in my mind it could go either way. IME unless you routinely appear in front of a Judge it’s impossible to predict their evidentiary rulings on close calls and even when you know a Judge well they can still surprise you w/ their rulings. 
I’d lean more strongly towards it not coming in if the prosecution were seeking admission solely based on rule 404(b) which deals with character/propensity evidence, but rule 414 specifically allows (but does not require) the Judge to admit evidence of prior CSA in CSA cases, so I wouldn’t be shocked if it came in, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Judge excluded it either.

Even w/out the prior CSA evidence, the case should be interesting to follow - especially if the defense is some other dude did it & the covenant eyes stuff comes in because what other person would know he had to set up the computer to not notify Anna when he wanted to download the CSA.

It is also possible that the Judge could initially exclude the evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief, but allow it in during the prosecution’s rebuttal case if the defendant opens the door by presenting certain defenses/evidence. 

Yea, I agree with this take. It's a stretch of an ask from the Government but it's not a huge stretch. It also isn't the key to their case either. It's going to be an interesting call. 

I think anything Anna would be called from the Prosecution would count as "testifying against Josh", even if it's just factual information ("What information does Covenant Eyes send you?" "When did you purchase it?"). All of that information could be acquired from CE and credit card statements anyway, and I also don't think it's the crux of the case at all. It's interesting that it exists on the computer, but has nothing to do with it other than provide some context for the Linux partition. But, it doesn't matter why Josh partitioned his drive, just having done so and put TOR on one side is enough evidence of awareness and some intent to hide computer activity. 

[Sullie06]

15 hours ago, Howl said:

What about sentencing? If (when) he is convicted, can this be introduced as part of the sentencing phase of the trial?

It could very much be part of a Pre-Sentence Investigation. 

[patsymae]

20 hours ago, socalrules said:

I highly doubt the court is going to allow any talk of the CSA of his sisters to come in at trial. It’s not relevant to the instant case as this is about Josh and videos/images, not actually touching anyone. The defense will rightly move to exclude and it will likely be granted. He is not on trial for what he did to his sisters and the family friend. Nor was he ever convicted of doing anything. Judges like to keep the case tight to the issue at hand. That is how it should be. Plus, bringing in what happened when he was younger definitely raises an appealable issue. Now, should he be convicted, that type of evidence could come in during sentencing to show he has a pattern of behavior. It really doesn’t matter what the prosecution or defense wants to bring in at trial if the judge doesn’t believe it is relevant, is not more probative than prejudicial or if it will confuse the jury. You can’t throw in the kitchen sink at trial. 
 

This trial is going to be a lot more boring that people are hoping. No one exciting will take the stand. I don’t believe Josh will take the stand. That’s too much of a risk. It’s going to be a lot of tech stuff. The updates will likely put us to sleep for the most part. 

Most trials are a lot more boring than you think they are going to be, at least to watch.

I'm not a lawyer, but to my ignorant eye it looks like the prosecution is making a pretty good case for including the prior molestations, bringing up what looks like a lot of case law that cases of CSAM are treated differently because prior bad acts show a propensity to commit the same kind of crime, which is not (in my words) like a normal crime (like, robbery because a propensity to want to steal money is not unusual) but a bent that is not shared by "normal people." And that it also explains the Covenant Eyes software and his working around it.

I hope they are right.

[BensAllergies]

The only trial I’ve ever followed closely from start to finish was for Elizabeth Smart’s kidnappers and rapist. I felt a kinship with her as she is only one year older than me, but due to the long captivity she ended up in my same grade. I used to pass by her on campus as we went to the same college, and I’ve met and/or been friends with some of her friends from HS and college - but we never met personally. I still remember her posters on the church bulletin and where I was when I heard that she was found alive.

I don’t know why I follow the Duggars so much but similarly, I am Anna’s age and while I did not grow up in a cult, there are many similarities in culture. I feel a kinship most with Jill and would really like to see justice for someone who wronged her.

[Dandruff]

43 minutes ago, patsymae said:

I'm not a lawyer, but to my ignorant eye it looks like the prosecution is making a pretty good case for including the prior molestations, bringing up what looks like a lot of case law that cases of CSAM are treated differently because prior bad acts show a propensity to commit the same kind of crime, which is not (in my words) like a normal crime (like, robbery because a propensity to want to steal money is not unusual) but a bent that is not shared by "normal people." And that it also explains the Covenant Eyes software and his working around it.

I agree with your point about propensity (I'm not a lawyer, either) but suspect Covenant Eyes is widely used by fundies as an "extra" protection.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Duggars have a family subscription, if there is such a thing, and the folks they hang with do also.

[AussieKrissy]

15 hours ago, mpheels said:

That’s what I was thinking. Josh’s team sets up a parade of evidence and witnesses to demonstrate his Godly countenance, which opens the door for the prosecutors to bring counter evidence of his character. They may not even need to bring up the abuse of his sisters. They could bring up Josh’s statements following the Ashley Madison reveal. Combined with the existence of covenant eyes on his work computer, it’s pretty good evidence that Josh’s own family had questions about his character.

could they counter that with it being a standard practice in their family regardless of prior transgressions, or lack there off? I thought all the family had it on. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by AussieKrissy
add crap

[VixenToast]

20 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

could they counter that with it being a standard practice in their family regardless of prior transgressions, or lack there off? I thought all the family had it on. 

I swear to Rufus there was once an episode of 19kac where they talked about covenant eyes. Or if not CE, then something similar. I remember Jana being the sibling in charge of all the passwords, so she was the accountability person. Does anyone else remember?

I want to get all of the pre-counting on episodes on dvd just so I can rewatch and have the useless knowledge.

20 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

[AussieKrissy]

9 minutes ago, VixenToast said:

I swear to Rufus there was once an episode of 19kac where they talked about covenant eyes. Or if not CE, then something similar. I remember Jana being the sibling in charge of all the passwords, so she was the accountability person. Does anyone else remember?

I want to get all of the pre-counting on episodes on dvd just so I can rewatch and have the useless knowledge.

yep that is where I think I am getting it from to because I remember the Jana thing too and some creepy mooch bit talking about it 

[marmalade]

I don't know if they talked about CE on the show, but Boobchelle definitely talked about it on the fundie lecture circuit. They stressed that their adult sons CHOSE to be accountable, blah blah blah. 

The feds definitely want to use his prior CSA history as well as the regular porn history in the trial to establish a pattern and reason to set up the partition in the first place.