(CP) Josh Duggar’s lead protection lawyer, Justin Gelfand, has filed a movement to request that his shopper be acquitted of two little one pornography convictions or be granted a brand new trial.
The previous actuality TV star’s protection workforce filed a movement over 75 pages lengthy on Wednesday asking for an acquittal below Federal Rule of Legal Process 29, in response to the Arkansas-based KNWA-TV.
If the acquittal is denied, then the movement requests a brand new trial.
Investigators mentioned photographs of kid pornography have been present in a pc at a car dealership owned by the eldest little one of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, whose household was featured on the fact tv exhibits “19 Children & Counting” and “Counting On.” The Duggars are a big ultra-conservative Christian household that reside in Arkansas.
Josh Duggar, a 33-year-old father of seven, had pleaded not guilty to the fees. His protection claimed another person was answerable for the unlawful recordsdata on the pc, a declare investigators discovered to be unlikely. In December, he was found guilty by a federal jury of receiving and possessing little one pornography and will resist 20 years in jail. He has not but been sentenced.
Gelfand maintained that the proof offered was not sufficient to convict the previous “19 Children and Counting” actuality star.
“The proof elicited at trial doesn’t help a conviction on both rely — even within the mild most favorable to the Authorities,” the movement claims. “The Authorities did not adduce any proof that Duggar ‘knew that the visible depictions have been of a minor partaking in sexually express conduct.'”
The request defined that the video recordsdata used as proof within the preliminary trial gave the jury “no proof that Duggar personally considered any particular portion of any of the recordsdata allegedly discovered on the pc.”
“The Court docket’s broad discretion empowers it to grant aid primarily based not solely on the sufficiency of the proof at trial however on every other circumstance that may render the trial ‘primarily unfair,’ together with trial errors,” the assertion continued.