Things to watch in the R. Kelly trial
Josh Levin in Slate continues to post:
On cross-examination, Adam Jr. repeatedly confirms that Jamison relied exclusively on her best friend’s face and hair to identify the girl and time-stamp the video. “You can’t tell by looking at a person’s vagina how old they are, can you?” he asks, then takes a stab at answering his own question: “I don’t think you can.” Once it’s well-established that Jamison didn’t pay much attention to the alleged victim’s crotch and torso, Adam Jr. asks whether Jamison has seen a “Waymon Brothers” movie called Little Man. “They took the head of Marlon Waymons and put it on a midget, and it looked real, didn’t it?” Adam Jr. exclaims, emphasizing the last two words for maximum “gotcha” effect. Jamison looks at him like he’s a lunatic or, at least, an astoundingly bad film critic. “Not reeeally,” she says, her voice lilting in disbelief as the courtroom breaks up. Congratulations to the Waymon Brothers: This is the first time Little Man has generated laughter.
The Chicago Sun-Times has this riveting account of the insanity of this particular trial:
R&B singer Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards clashed with defense lawyer Ed Genson this afternoon when Genson said Edwards was driven by revenge and money in identifying a relative of hers as the girl on the R. Kelly sex tape
At one point, Edwards and Genson were shouting at each other simultaneously and the singer called the 66-year-old lawyer “Sweetie.”
“I am not your sweetie!” Genson shouted.
The exchange drew a stern rebuke from Judge Vincent Gaughan. “I don’t want you talking at the same time. This is a court of law.”
It’s of course difficult to understand what’s going on from second-hand accounts like this, but they read more than slightly absurdist. If you’re a juror, you’re wondering if the girl in the tape is under-aged. The prosecution has been bringing folks on to testify that they know who it is, and that she was under-age.
The defense seems to be talking about extraneous things. Even if Edwards were using the tape to blackmail Kelly, it’s irrelevant to the trial, if the girl on the tape is indeed her niece. The sense we’re not getting is whether the defense attorneys are creating an efficient enough smokescreen.
The girl in the tape is apparently not going to testify, and we’ve heard already that the defense lawyers is playing that up, with the implication that the prosecution has something to hide. Again, it’s hard to sense the dynamic of the courtroom from this vantage point, but would jurors think it odd the poor girl in question wouldn’t want to be on the stand?
Last week, I posted a list of strands to follow during the trial. The most important is evidence of past Kelly indiscretions. As far as I have read, there has been no mention of his marriage to the 15-year-old singer Aaliyah, for example, much less his other legal problems involving charges that he has had sex with young girls. A good test of how good the coverage of the trial is will be whether reporters can explain the legal reasons behind whatever decision is made on this angle.
A sideshow tomorrow will certainly be the subpoena of Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis, who is reportedly supposed to appear in court. (Disclosure: DeRogatis is a friend and a former business partner of mine.)
The tape at the center of the case was left, anonymously, at his house; the paper turned it over to police and published a report on it, and that took the Kelly scandal to a boil. While DeRogatis’ testimony of how the tape came into his possession would seem uncontroversial, the issue is complicated by the fact that he had already been reporting on Kelly’s sexual indiscretions for a year, and the Sun-Times might not want to risk allowing him to go onto the stand. Stay tuned.
—————-
Previously in Hitsville:
The NYT and R. Kelly: Curiouser and curiouser.
The NYT finally notices R. Kelly isn’t a nice guy
R. Kelly and the NYT: The Freaky Defense
Tribune, Sun-Times protest closed hearings in R. Kelly case
1 Comment so far
Leave a reply
Hitsville, I confess I have not read the pre-trial motions of the defense, and I don’t know bunk about criminal law. However, I would be surprised if they hadn’t filed a motion to exclude other evidence based on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which can prevent reference to “other crimes, wrongs, or acts of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” The rule is in place to prevent a person at trial to be convicted (or prejudiced) by her previous actions.
One might argue the marriage to Aaliyah would fall under this argument. The defense likely worked its tail off to prevent mention of his marriage or other indiscretions or arrests, as to prevent the focus being taken off this particular trial and being put on the life of R. Kelly (I know I would have filed a separate motion for each other “act” or “indiscretion” to battle over each issue).
Note that the rule cuts both ways: the next sentence provides that these other acts “may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .” So the prosecutor may be working overtime to bring in the evidence to show that R. Kelly didn’t “mistake” the girl as 21 (a common (and always futile) theme in statutory rape trials, as mistake is generally no excuse under state laws) because he has a documented history with underage women.
Glance over at Rules 405 and 406 for other ideas on how character and habits come into play.