Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he was an orphan?
Today the jurors at the R. Kelly trial were given a break. There was no testimony; the court handled administrative matters in the case.
One of these matters, the Sun-Times is reporting, was … well, let’s let the paper tell it:
R. Kelly’s attorneys are trying to have witnesses for the prosecution charged with crimes, it emerged in court this morning as the defense continued its pursuit of Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis.
The jury has the day off but Judge Gaughan spent much of this morning in a secret hearing with both sides after prosecutor Shauna Boliker revealed that Kelly’s attorneys have asked that state’s witnesses be charged.
Charged? Charged with what?
Boliker did not say which witnesses the defense wants charged, or with what, but Kelly’s team has repeatedly questioned this week why witnesses who had seen the sex tape at the center of the case did not contact police sooner.
The defense has also suggested several times that anyone who possessed a copy of the tape committed the crime of child pornography, including DeRogatis.
I’m confused! Is it cricket, legally speaking, for someone to plead not guilty to child porn charges … but then ask that the witnesses in the case who have identified him and an under-aged girl in a by-all-accounts crisp and clear videotape be charged with possession of child pornography?
Seen one way, the level of chutzpah here, as with the orphan in the old joke, is pretty elevated. Seen another, it does seem a bit … legally self-defeating. Wouldn’t Kelly have to testify that it was he and an under-aged girl on the tape in order to make the case that it was indeed child porn the witnesses had viewed?
9 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Bill: I’m loving your blog, and, for some reason, I am morbidly fascinated w/ the R. Kelly trial. (I’m no fan of Kelly or his music, so my interest is puzzling to me.)
What is interesting is that in your blog + Slate’s coverage of the trial, the victim is referred to as Sparkle’s niece, but in the Chicago media (www.chicagotribune.com) they only refer to her as Sparkle’s [relative]. I’m confused as to why identifying the young woman as the niece is such a big deal in chicago…go figure.
Thanks, Marie. I’m assuming it’s because the Tribune is bending over backwards to try not to give identifying detail of the girl, now a woman, in question.
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]
[…] Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he wa… […]