Ahead of Josh Duggar’s child pornography trial, the reality TV alum is looking to add another lawyer to his team. Duggar has requested permission from a judge to add associate attorney Ian T. Murphy of Margulis Gelfand, LLC, to his defense as his co-counsel. Margulis Gelfand, LLC is the law firm in charge of the 19 Kids and Counting star’s defense. The judge granted the request on Monday, according to The Sun.
The move comes amid other moves from prosecutors to include previous allegations against Josh Duggar in the trial to establish the precedence of his sexual attraction toward young girls. In 2015, the Duggar patriarch Jim Bob filed a police report claiming that his son had molested four of his young sisters as well as a babysitter in the home. The prosecution says in their initial request: “Specifically, the government notices its intent to introduce evidence that in approximately 2002 and 2003… the defendant attempted to and did commit a crime as defined by Arkansas state law involving contact between any part of the defendant’s body and a child’s genitals or anus—namely, sexual assault in the second degree.”
Videos by PopCulture.com
Duggar’s team argued back in court documents that the allegations shouldn’t be admitted in court, saying that it’s possible Josh Duggar didn’t commit the alleged crimes –– despite him having confessed and apologized at the time –– because he was never arrested or charged for the incident. “There is no question the allegations at issue arise at a time when Duggar was a child and the allegations at issue in this case arise at a time when Duggar was in his 30’s,” the documents read. “Furthermore, there is no question Duggar was never charged with a crime related to those allegations.”
“The Report is heavily redacted and, importantly, includes no names or dates of birth of anyone involved making it exceedingly difficult for anyone, much less this Court in ruling on the application of Rule 414, to determine whether Duggar actually committed the acts alleged in the Report and whether the conduct, if committed, constituted a crime, particularly in light of the affirmative defenses clearly set out in the statute,” the defense continued, adding that the previous allegations could “mislead a jury” since they don’t pertain to the current case.
