FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — The prosecution and Josh Duggar’s defense team each filed multiple motions on November 10, in advance of Duggar’s child pornography trial in the Western District Court of Arkansas.
All of the filings, ten in total, are responses to motions both sides made earlier this month.
The government’s first filing tied in to a defense motion that would have sequestered witnesses and prevented the prosecution with speaking with them during the trial. The prosecution requested that the court “follow its standard and customary practice” and deny the motion.
The government filing stated that the defendant’s request “is contrary to controlling authority.”
The next filing by the prosecution related to their earlier request allowing for the admission of evidence “regarding the defendant’s asserted addiction to pornography,” as well as the government’s right to question Duggar on “his character, including truthfulness” if he takes the stand.
The defense had filed a motion requesting that the court enter an order preventing the government from presenting any evidence related to Duggar’s supposed “addiction” to viewing adult pornography.
Another government filing pertained to statements the defendant made during the execution of a search warrant at his business on November 8, 2019. The defense filed an earlier motion requesting that the court prohibit the prosecution from calling witnesses or seeking evidence related to Duggar’s decision to decline answering certain questions during the search.
This motion stated that the prosecution “does not intend to introduce in its case in chief any of the ten portions of the defendant’s recorded interview” identified in the defense motion. The prosecution motion reserves the right to introduce portions of the interview if the defendant “seeks to introduce evidence or argue that his non-custodial statements were somehow involuntary or unreliable.”
Another government motion simply sought to defer a ruling on a defense motion “to see if the parties can reach an agreement on a joint stipulation” that would resolve the defense’s motion.
The defense made a trio of filings, all regarding the admissibility of certain statements or forms of evidence.
The first motion noted that a statement about porn addiction, “even if it can be attributed to Duggar as non-hearsay, is not relevant and is therefore inadmissible.” It went on to state that even if the statement held some “minimal relevance,” that “any such probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion.”
Another defense motion alleged that a prior filing by the government was “an argument [that] turns the Constitution on its head,” and that a refusal to deny that earlier prosecution motion pertaining to the relevance of calling some of Duggar’s co-workers as witnesses would “have chilling consequences.”
The defense motion continued, stating that the prior filing “finds absolutely no support in law” and should be rejected.
Each side filed motions regarding allegations about behavior by Duggar when he was a juvenile. The defense sought an order denying the admission of certain evidence because it would turn the trial “into a series of minitrials concerning whether Duggar violated an Arkansas law approximately 18 years ago when he was a child, despite never being charged or convicted.”
An earlier motion by the prosecution asserted that they were seeking to include evidence that “is relevant to and highly probative of the defendant’s knowing receipt and possession of child pornography.”
Duggar’s jury trial is scheduled to begin on November 30 at the Fayetteville District Court. Duggar faces up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 on each count if convicted.