More details on the R. Kelly/Jim DeRogatis ruling. The two local papers, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune, offer somewhat inconsistent accounts of the proceedings. The Sun-Times, in its report coverage, said this:

Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn argued Friday morning that DeRogatis should be protected from testifying by the Illinois reporter’s privilege and the First Amendment. Kelly’s attorneys were attempting to create a “chilling effect” against reporters covering Kelly by bringing DeRogatis in to testify, he said.

Anything DeRogatis could say in court would be “irrelevant” to Kelly’s defense, he added.

But Gaughan sided with Kelly’s attorney Marc Martin, saying that the reporter’s privilege only protects journalists from identifying their sources. Gaughan said he would not allow Kelly’s team to question DeRogatis about his sources, or to ask him how he got the tape, or to ask DeRogatis if he made a copy of the tape.

Emphasis added. The judge apparently will, however, make DeRogatis testify about a meeting he had with Stephanie Edwards, a former protégé of R. Kelly’s who sings under the professional name of Sparkle. Edwards was one of the people who identified the participants in the sex tape at the center of the case to DeRogatis and was quoted in his original story on the case:

The girl in the video, now 17, was identified by her aunt, who said that her niece would have been 14 at the time the tape was made, based on her appearance. Kelly can also be heard on the tape referring to the girl by her first name.

The names of the girl and her aunt are being withheld by the Sun-Times to protect the family’s privacy, although they are known to police.

The judge even went further, according to the Sun-Times story today:

Gaughan also said DeRogatis would have to turn over any notes relating to that meeting with Sparkle, saying that he did not believe that would reveal anything about DeRogatis’s sources.

The distinction between not questioning the reporter about his sources but forcing him to talk about a meeting with a source is one that isn’t explained. And trying to force DeRogatis to turn over notes opens up a whole new can of legal worms. The justification seems to be an attempt to impeach the testimony of Edwards, who has already told jurors she recognized Kelly and her niece on the tape. But the papers aren’t making it clear why the judge thinks any of this is relevant to the crime being tried, which is Kelly’s allegedly having brought a 13- or 14-year-old girl back to his suburban Chicago house, had sex with her and then urinated on her, all on videotape and all years before any of the participants actually saw the tape.

Here’s the Chicago Tribune’s version of events, with a first sentence, emphasis added, that contradicts what the ST said:

The defense intends to question DeRogatis about whether he manipulated, morphed or copied the video after receiving it. The singer’s attorneys contend the music critic–who spent years chronicling the R&B superstar’s relationships with young women–has a personal vendetta against Kelly.

“The bias was so strong it compelled the reporter to break the law,” said Kelly’s attorney, Marc Martin.

Last week, Kelly’s team suggested that DeRogatis copied the sex tape and showed it to Stephanie “Sparkle” Edwards, a relative of the video’s alleged female participant. If that happened, it’s possible he might have broken the state’s laws against reproduction, possession and dissemination of child pornography, the defense says.

Again, this contention seems to be detrimental to the defense’s case, since his client, many witnesses have said, was the guy who made and starred in it. It’s hard to see the logical point to this, other than as a way to delay the trial by forcing the Sun-Times to fight the issue. But some of what the Trib said doesn’t gibe with what the ST wrote, particularly the issue of asking DeRogatis if he copied the videotape he received.

The story does, however, clarify the “possession of child porn” angle:

Both the judge and the defense, however, acknowledge the statute of limitations ran out on any copying or screening of the tape in 2002. If [DeRogatis] still has a copy–or had it within the past three years–it’s possible he may have broken the law, Gaughan said.