The R. Kelly case: Prosecutorial problems

rkelly-mug-shot.jpgThe Chicago Tribune has a long overview of  the R. Kelly case, which is supposed to get underway on Friday. The article focuses on what it says is the key difficulty for the prosecution: Convicting a guy for having sex with a girl on tape when the girl police have identified as being on the tape denies it.

The girl whom authorities identified as the teen in the raunchy sex tape denied her involvement to a grand jury in 2002, and her stance has not wavered in the years since his indictment, according to court records. Court documents also suggest she may testify on Kelly’s behalf during the trial, a move that may further complicate an already difficult prosecution.

For jurors to give the charges serious consideration, experts say prosecutors must portray the alleged victim, now 23, as a liar. While not a common courtroom maneuver, the prosecution will try to counter her claims with the testimony of the woman’s friends and relatives—including one woman who is set to publicly say that she had a three-way sexual encounter with the R&B superstar and the alleged victim.

“That’s a tough river to have to cross for the prosecution,” said Ronald Smith, a John Marshall Law School professor. “But it’s not impossible.”

Rich people always have the advantage in cases like this; the second crime here is the way Kelly has been able to delay facing the charges in court for six years. But keep reading and it appears the prosecution does have some assets:

[P]rosecutors still face the daunting task of convicting without the alleged victim’s cooperation. Though both she and her parents have denied under oath that she is the girl in the tape, about four dozen witnesses called before the grand jury—including her aunt—identified her, Kelly or both.

Many of those same people are expected to testify at the criminal trial, though the judge has placed the witness list under seal and made it unavailable for public viewing. During a pretrial hearing in 2005, however, a childhood friend identified the alleged victim in the video and estimated the tape was made in the summer before high school, judging from her longtime pal’s hairstyle. “But it could have been a little before,” Simha Jamison said.


1 Comment so far

  1. Mike Belgrove May 5th, 2008 9:04 am

    Ok, someone help me figure this out cause I’m confused. Juan over at Highbrid Nation told me that this new witness has popped up and is saying that she knows that the girl was underage because she joined Kelly and the underage girl in a threesome. So that makes her guilty and Kelly right? Or was she underage also? Which would make Kelly guity in another underage case. Kelly is off the chain.

Leave a reply