![]() The other two belonging to individuals that were read their Miranda rights entails “the failure to observe the fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice.” This witness also was incarcerated during the May 2019 timeframe.ĭuggar’s lawyers say in a motion the denial of Duggar’s rights under the due process clause, arising from the Homeland Security Investigator’s failure to preserve evidence from three electronic devices, one of which belonged to a person of interest in the child porn investigation. Officers observed no pornographic material and the phone was returned. The third witness’ also allowed their phone to be viewed during the interview with law enforcement. No evidence of child pornography was found and the phone was given back. The prosecution says the second phone was from a witness who was interviewed in December 2019 and consented to the manual review of the phone’s contents without the forensic tool. In a response to this motion, the prosecution confirmed one witness was manually reviewed by law enforcement and given back the phone without the forensic tool because no evidence of child pornography was found. The defense claims that one witness, who was in custody, “allowed law enforcement to examine his cell phone during the interview.” Law enforcement did not create a forensic report or forensic image of this device, according to the motion, and the phone was given back to the witness. Josh Duggar attorneys seek dismissal of child porn charges The prosecution says his right to counsel only attaches at critical stages of the proceedings, and the taking of photographs is not a critical stage of the proceedings.Īnother motion was filed on the same day where the defense asked the court to dismiss the case based on the prosecution’s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.Īccording to the motion, the defense states the exculpatory evidence was three cell phones that were obtained by law enforcement. ![]() 2000.ĭuggar’s attorneys also contend that law enforcement violated Duggar’s rights because the photographs were taken when legal counsel was not present. Suppression of the photographs is not warranted since Duggar voluntarily consented to them, according to the prosecution’s response citing Pace v City of Des Moines 8th Cir. The defense argues different angles of his hands were photographed, both hands being photographed when the left hand was the one needed for the prosecution and the depiction of Duggar’s feet along with his hands is enough to have the court suppress the photographs. ![]() Josh Duggar asks for child pornography trial to be pushed back to 2022 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |