A judge in Chicago has abruptly delayed the scheduled Sept. 17 jury selection in the R. Kelly child-pornography trial this a.m., and didn’t offer a new date. The Chicago Sun-Times said he didn’t give a reason, but the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago paper, said this:

Kelly, who has pleaded not guilty to the charge [sic; there are 14 charges], appeared in Judge Vincent Michael Gaughan’s courtroom today in what was expected to be a hearing in preparation for the pending trial. Instead, Gaughan announced the trial would be delayed for reasons that were “personal.”

A statement from the court later in the morning said, “Under doctor’s orders the lead prosecutor, who has recently given birth, is not able to proceed at this time. ”

The Herald story mentions in passing why Kelly has been running around free for five years:

The case has undergone repeated delays - some of them for bizarre reasons. The singer waived his right to a speedy trial, a move that allowed his high-priced defense team to file more than 30 pretrial motions.

That’s not that bizarre, is it? A rich defendant using the legal system to stay out of jail? The story also details Kelly’s artistic activity over the last five years, but neglects to mention that Kelly was arrested in Florida on more child-sex charges after the now-notorious Chicago sex tape was revealed. Isn’t that more relevant to this story than details of Kelly’s tour with Jay-Z?

As I have written earlier, daily newspaper folks are very busy these days, and sometimes they don’t have the time to construct the background material that puts new developments in an ongoing story into context. So here, again, are Hitsville’s helpful backgrounder grafs on Kelly, which overtaxed daily newspaper scribes are welcome to use for free:

Kelly, now 40, has a long and lurid history of sexual involvements with young girls. In 1995 he was said to have married a 15-year-old girl, the singer Aaliyah. Kelly denied it, but it was found to be true, and the marriage was duly annulled. Kelly did not face charges.

In 2002, a tape came to light showing what appeared to be Kelly and a young girl engaged in a variety of sex acts; one involved Kelly urinating on the girl. After five years of delays, he is to go on trial for 14 counts of child pornography in Chicago soon; charges involving having sex with a minor were dropped because the videotape did not show the two having intercourse; urination didn’t count. Kelley has denied the charges and said he is not the man in the video.

Kelly was arrested in Florida in 2003 for 12 more counts of child pornography stemming from photos in a digital camera found in a house he was renting that showed him having sex with an underage girl. These charges were later dropped after the search warrant used to raid the house was ruled unjustified.

It’s uncool in the rock world to say stuff like this, but I don’t think it’s prudish to think Kelly should be in jail. I don’t even understand how he’s out on bail or is allowed to tour, as he has been three times since this legal circus began: There are at least three documented instances now of his having had sex with girls far under the age of consent, and he has the money and the means to keep doing it. And the court lets him roam around the country playing shows in front of … adoring underage girls. I think the judge is being naive. What does he think happens after a typical rock show? Isn’t the U.S. supposed to be in the middle of a frenzy about kid sex predators? Why is R. Kelly running around free?