R. Kelly Acquitted On All Counts

Conviction Of R&B Singer Could Have Brought 15 Years In Prison On Child Pornography Charges

(CBS/ AP)  R. Kelly was acquitted of all charges Friday after less than a day of deliberations in his child pornography trial, ending a six-year ordeal for the R&B superstar.

Kelly dabbed his face with a handkerchief and hugged each of his four attorneys after the verdict — not guilty on all 14 counts — was read. The Grammy award-winning singer had faced 15 years in prison if convicted.

Minutes later, surrounded by bodyguards, he left the courthouse without comment. Dozens of fans screamed and cheered as he climbed into a waiting SUV.

Prosecutors had argued that a video tape mailed to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2002 showed Kelly engaged in graphic sex acts with a girl as young as 13 at the time. Both Kelly, 41, and the now 23-year-old alleged victim had denied they were the ones on the tape. Neither testified during the trial.

The prosecution's star witness was a woman who said she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the alleged victim. Defense attorneys argued the man on the tape didn't have a large mole on his back; Kelly has such a mole.

The monthlong trial centered on whether Kelly was the man who appears on a sexually graphic, 27-minute videotape at the heart of the case, and whether a female who also appears on it was underage.

Kelly was defended by high-profile Chicago attorneys, including Edward Genson, who known for his persuasive powers with jurors, and the father-son team of Sam Adam Sr. and Jr., WBBM-TV in Chicago reports.

The prosecution team was lead by Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Shauna Boliker, who has prosecuted several other high-profile cases, including against Rev. Daniel McCormack, a Catholic priest who pleaded guilty last year to abusing five boys.

Over seven days presenting their case, prosecutors called 22 witnesses, including several childhood friends of the alleged victim and four of her relatives who identified her as the female on the video.

In just two days, Kelly's lawyers called 12 witnesses. They included three relatives of the alleged victim who testified they did not recognize her as the female on the tape.

Kelly won a Grammy in 1997 for "I Believe I Can Fly," and is known for such raunchy hits as "Bump N' Grind," "Ignition," and for "Trapped in the Closet," a multipart saga about the sexual secrets of an ever-expanding cast of characters.

Of the 12 jurors, nine were men and three were women; eight were white and four were black. They included the wife of a Baptist preacher from Kelly's Chicago-area hometown, Olympia Fields, as well as a compliance officer for a Chicago investment firm and a man in his 60s who emigrated from then-Communist Romania nearly 40 years ago.

Despite his legal troubles, Kelly — who rose from poverty on Chicago's South Side to become a star singer, songwriter and producer — still retains a huge following, and his popularity has arguably grown in recent years.

The singer has released more than half a dozen albums, most of them selling over a million copies. He's also had a multitude of hits and gone on tours. Kelly has a new song, "Hair Braider," out now, and is due to release a new album in July.

Kelly, always meticulously dressed in a suit and tie, appeared tense at times during the trial, furrowing his brow. He seemed particularly ill at ease when prosecutors played the sex tape in open court after opening arguments.

In the video, entered into evidence as "People's Exhibit No. 1," a man has sex with a young female, who is naked for most of the recording. She is often blank-faced. The man speaks to her in a hushed voice, and she calls him "Daddy."

In one scene, alluded to in one count of the indictment, the man urinates on the female.

The issue of whether there was or wasn't a fingernail-sized mole on the man's lower was a subject of hours of testimony. A defense witness told jurors there was no mole on his back, proving it's not Kelly, who has such a mole. But a prosecution witness displayed freeze frames of the video where a dark spot seemed to appear as the man turns to take off his pants.

One surreal moment came when a defense expert played a segment of the tape he doctored showing two headless bodies engaging in sex. The defense said that backed their argument that Kelly's likeness could have been computer-generated.

Cross examination was often heated. Several witnesses cried on the stand.

The star prosecution witness, Lisa Van Allen, became teary eyed as she told jurors she engaged in several three-way sexual encounters with Kelly and the alleged victim, including once on a basketball court. Kelly videotaped the trysts, she said.

Van Allen also claimed Kelly used to carry a duffel bag stuffed full of his homemade sex tapes.

The defense called several witnesses in a bid to discredit Van Allen, accusing her of trying to extort money from Kelly. Under cross-examination, Van Allen admitted she once stole Kelly's $20,000 diamond-studded watch from a hotel.

[jennmarikp]

What a waste of taxpayers money. The girl now an adult claimed it wasn''t her in the video - why would charges even be filed if their isn''t someone claiming they were violated? What a waste!!!!

[joecoolswat]

jerr11.....I understand it just kills you (pardon the pun) to know that Bush destroyed and smashed terrorists all around the globe, and being the terrorist lover you are, you hate it.....Excuse us for defending our country, either directly or pre-emptively.

[jerr11]

derbydemon....what part of Aquitted On All Accounts do you not understand?.....he was aquitted, found NOT GUILTY....

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:13 AM : Jun 14, 2008



Joe, good post! I totally agree with you (for once)



But here''s a Public Service Announcement:

For a compelling story about America''s #1 murderer on the loose, read:

"The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder"

by Vincent Bugliosi.

Former LA Deputy DA Mr. Bugliosi is familiar with pathological minds. He successfully prosecuted over 100 murder cases including Charles Manson.

[joecoolswat]

derbydemon....what part of Aquitted On All Accounts do you not understand?.....he was aquitted, found NOT GUILTY....it wasn''t even him or the girl on the tape they had....the jurors could obviously see the prosectutor was trying to pull another Duke case out of his a$$

[joecoolswat]

DemWatcher....come to find out, it wasn''t even him on the videotape, and the girl was someone else as well

[demwatcher]

They had a tape and STILL did not find him guilty?

He MUST be democrat.

[travelling4]

the prosecutors should be thrown out of office. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of being convicted. With so many people (including the alledged victim), it was very unlikely that he would have been convicted anyway. The prosecutors have demonstrated that they are not just fishing for convictions, but are biased and probably racist as well.

[dmorg4c]

All these armchair lawyers make me hungry.

[brianbwb-2009]

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man''''s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour''''s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Posted by drmaqazi

So where in the story does it say that the female was another man''s wife? Since it does not, your premise is false.

[txlakeside]

Derby ... so a jury verdict if not to your biased sense is wrong? You convicted the guy before his pants were even proved pulled down. I guess we should all just bow to your great and magnificent, omnipotent, all knowing self, who is judge, jury and executioner ..... nahhhhh. I am glad we still live in America where you are innocent until a jury decides you are guilty.

[derbydemon]

Oh ok, I guess Child Pornography is legal as long as you''re famous.

Seriously..when will a celeb EVER get convicted and serve FULL TIME...they either get off scott-free or spend a day in prison with a slap on the wrist.

America is going to hell in a handbasket.

[patriot12436]

omded
Under the law if found not guilty the prosecution cannot appeal, only a defense attorney can appeal a guilty verdict.

[patriot12436]

I do not like rap, but that is irrelevant. I wasn''t there to hear th evidence but from what i have read there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the jury did the right thing. I would hope to receive an impartial hearing if i were on trial. As for O.J., personally i think he is guilty. As for his trial if i had been on the jury i would have voted not guilty. The prosecution was his best defense from day one. I think she was bought to throw the trial. Noone can be that incompetent without trying.

[tamibohica]

people, people!....as anyone who has served on a jury duty trial will tell you, not guilty does not mean INNOCENT...we all know OJ did it, the state, however did not prove it''s case...probably the same thing happened here...who the heck knows.....in all honesty, if by some strange twist of fate we found ourselves being judged by a jury of our peers i''m sure we''d want to get off because we didn''t do it...but, maybe just maybe, if we did do whatever they say we did AND the state did NOT prove their case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (this is one mighty big phrase here people!)then hey, are we gonna complain??....I DON''T THINK SO.....so really, who are we to judge??....i''d like to think the jury did what they thought was right...so be it...that''s my story and i''m stickin'' to it!....good night y''all!

[spadeisspade]

There is a character on Tekken 3; when he wins, he flaps his arms around and I SWEAR it''s in time to that song "I Believe I Can Fly"

But seriously, this case is one of many (girls coming foward, marrying Aliyah when she was FIFTEEN). If I ever want to have *** with underage girls, I''m going to make sure to be wildly famous first.

[omded]

As far as I''m aware, I''ve only heard one of his songs ("I believe I Can Fly"), and, while I don''t particularly like it, I don''t dislike it either.

I''m just trying to make the point that this guy may really be innocent. We just don''t know. Who knows, he may be guilty too. But, I think it''s a little dangerous to make assumptions when we really don''t know very much about the situation. All we can really do is let our judicial system take its course. I do know this. None of us would appreciate being wrongly accused of a crime like this, and, if we were, we''d all appreciate it if everyone would abide by the U.S. Constitution and presume our innocense until a prosecutor convinces a jury of 12 peers otherwise. Innocent people do get wrongly hurt, just like the victims they''re accused of commiting an offense against.

[sociald63]

omded - what the hey - are you like dr phil on meth ??? you speak like you''re a smart person - are you a fan of this loser ???!!!

[omded]

Does it make you feel good to judge this man? Does it make you feel good to find this man guilty? If it does, I would suggest the possibility that you don''t feel very good about yourself. I would suggest that, by finding this man to be "far worse than you", you can now feel good, or, at least, better about yourself. If this is the case, I would encourage you to view yourself with more respect. Aside from your anger, you seem like a perfectly fine person, and I doubt there''s any reason not to feel good about yourself. Come on! Look in the mirror, and see the wonderful person who''s looking back at you!!! The Gods made you, and I''m sure they''re proud of who they created! It''s ok to love yourself too! In fact, I''ll bet you deserve it!

Your comments may be entirely correct. This guy may be a very bad person. But, we can never know, so, let''s let it go!

[sociald63]

analyze the jury & this scum-bag as much as you want - they''re all losers. makes o.j. look like a choir boy compared to this predator -

[omded]

I agree Marsha Clark was incompetent, but, the fact remains that the Jury was not convinced of OJ''s guilt, and OJ is innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, just because the assistant distract attorney did a poor job doesn''t preclude the fact that OJ just may be innocent regardless. After all, one could logically assume that such an incompetent prosecutor was equally incompetent in her decision to persue charges. Regarding OJ''s guilt or innocence, and that of this guy right now, we can never know.

Now for a few questions: Do you know OJ Simpson? Did you know his wife, or Ron Goldman? Do you know this R and B singer? Do you know his alleged victim? If not, why do you have such an intense interest in this case? After all, how does it involve you? Let''s assume the young woman who is alleged to be in the video was, in fact, a participant. She isn''t expressing any injury from it, so, what''s the issue? After all, if she was saying "I am the person in the video, and this man was too, and this man, by his actions in the video has severly injured me either physically or emotionally, then I would be more inclined to join you in your anger. But, the fact is she isn''t saying any of these things, so why make an issue of it?