Popsquire

The jury just announced its verdict in the R. Kelly child pornography trial…NOT GUILTY.  R. Kelly was facing 14 counts of child pornography crimes and up to 15 years in an Illinois prison.  Wow.

For a reminder of what this was all about, visit Popsquire’s R. Kelly category.

Closing arguments in the R. Kelly child pornography trial concluded today, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The notable arguments:

The defense…

While showing the jurors a picture of the alleged victim, defense counsel told them “you are going to have to call (the alleged victim) 14 times individually and collectively a whore” to find Kelly guilty of 14 counts of child pornography.

He whispered, “My momma told me when we were kids, ‘if you ain’t got something nice to say about someone, don’t say it about her.” Then, he concluded his argument saying, “How are you 14 times going to call her a whore?”

The prosecution…

“We’re not saying that she’s a prostitute - we’re saying, based on the evidence that you heard in this trial that she is the victim of child pornography.”

Popsquire’s perspective…

The defense argument is ridiculous. A jury is supposed to acquit Kelly because they’d feel bad about calling a girl a whore, even though she was captured on camera taking money and then performing sex acts?!?

This is very weak. A good defense lawyer shows the jury that reasonable doubt exists by pointing to conflicts in testimony and evidence, not by asking the jurors to refrain from name calling. Absurd.

Until these closing arguments, Popsquire was kinda thinking R. Kelly would get off (yay puns!), but not so much any more. What do you think?!?

For information about other legal battles being waged against Kelly, check out this, that, and the other.

After presenting 12 witnesses in two days, R. Kelly’s defense team rested its case in his child pornography trial yesterday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.  Missing from the witness stand was the alleged victim.  Although she testified before the grand jury that she is not the girl in the infamous video, Kelly’s defense team did not call her to the stand.

Popsquire’s perspective…

Failing to call a key witness may be a sign of weakness.  If she were a credible witness who could testify that she was not in the video, the case could be a slam dunk for R. Kelly.  On the other hand, as some have alleged, she has been paid off to say she was not in the video, then issues of her credibility could ruin Kelly’s acquittal chances.

Today, the prosecution is expected to recall their expert witness, who previously testified that the videotape showed a dark spot (i.e., a mole) on the lower back of the man (allegedly Kelly) in the video. This testimony will aim to address the defense’s expert testimony; he testified that the spot was a tape defect and not evidence of R. Kelly’s mole, which would identify him as the man in the video.

For a reminder about why the mole is significant, check out Popsquire’s previous R. Kelly rundown here.

Lookin’ for some tantalizing dinner conversation this weekend? Popsquire is here to help! In case you haven’t been following the R. Kelly child pornography trial, here’s enough info to start and get through a decent (or indecent) conversation…

1. The R&B superstar pleaded not guilty to videotaping himself having sex with and urinating on a girl estimated to be 13 or 14.
2. The video shows a girl accepting money from the man before performing oral sex on him. She dances, naked, to a Backstreet Boys song. She urinates. She calls him “Daddy” while they have sex. Later, the man (allegedly Kelly) urinates and ejaculates on her.
3. The defense is two-fold: (1) Kelly is not on the sex tape, evidenced by a missing mole on his back; and (2) it’s a case of mistaken identity in that the alleged victim supposedly is not on the sex tape. The prosecution, however, insists that the tape “was created, staged, produced and starred in by the defendant.”
4. More than 10 witnesses have identified the alleged victim, while three relatives of the girl claim it’s a case of mistaken identity.
5. An expert for the prosecution played the sex tape in slow motion on a giant screen. During the testimony, he showed the man (allegedly Kelly) with his back turned and a dark spot (i.e., a mole) clearly visible.
6. Kelly’s defense team countered the potentially damaging testimony with their own expert, who described the markings as “artifacts” created by the tape’s poor quality and multiple reproductions.
7. Lisa Van Allen, who claims to have had an ongoing sexual relationship with Kelly, testified that in 1988, Kelly took her to his former home on the North Side of Chicago, where she met the alleged victim in this case for the first time. Kelly taped them while they had three-way sex in his “log-cabin” room. That’s the same room he’s alleged to have filmed the tape in this case. Van Allen testified that Kelly told her the alleged victim was 16.
8. Van Allen claims Kelly’s business manager, Derrel McDavid, paid her and another man $20,000 each for the return of a sex tape (not the one at issue in this case).
9. Kelly’s defense team countered Van Allen’s testimony by trying to undermine her credibility in several ways, including: (a) getting her to admit that she stole a Rolex watch from Kelly after a tryst at a Swissotel in Georgia in 2001; and (b) Jack Palladino — a private investigator best known for being hired by Bill Clinton to track down women he’d been linked with — testified that Van Allen’s fiance of the wanted a $300,000 payoff to keep the witness quiet.

Have a good weekend. And, if you are dying to know more details, click here.

The evidence is coming out of the closet in the R. Kelly child pornography trial! The first two days of the trial are over and, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, this is what has transpired so far:

1. Day One, 5/20/08: The prosecution and defense present opening arguments. The defense is two-fold: (1) R. Kelly is not on the sex tape, evidenced by a missing mole on his back; and (2) it’s a case of mistaken identity in that the alleged victim supposedly is not on the sex tape. The prosecution, however, insists that the tape “was created, staged, produced and starred in by the defendant.”
2. Day Two, 5/21/08: The jurors watch the sex tape and listen to testimony from witnesses who identify the girl in the tape as underage. The video shows a girl accepting money from the man before performing oral sex on him. She dances, naked, to a Backstreet Boys song. She urinates. She calls him “Daddy” while they have sex. Later, the man (allegedly R. Kelly) urinates and ejaculates on her.

For more info about the judge and lawyers involved, click here.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a 12-member jury has been picked for the R. Kelly child pornography trial. There are eight men and four women. Eight of the jurors are white, while four are African-American.

It’s about time. Popsquire was getting tired of counting!

Five additional jurors were selected yesterday in the R. Kelly child pornography trial, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.  The panel now consists of five men and three women, and is evenly split between blacks and whites.  Here’s the scoop on the newest jurors:

1. A 20-something white woman studying criminal justice who aspires to be a police officer, knows nothing about the R. Kelly case, and only is familiar with his “very old” music.
2. A black male culinary student who says he “absolutely” can put aside what he learned from the media about the case.
3. A white man in glasses who previously served on two civil trials.
4. A black woman in her 20s who works as a teacher’s assistant at a church where the Reverend plead guilty last year to sexually abusing boys.
5. A compliance officer with a downtown investment firm wearing an “Impeach Bush” button on his book bag.

Jury selection continues today. In all, 16 panelists will be picked: 12 jurors and four alternates.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the attorneys in the R. Kelly child pornography trial have selected three jurors, after interviewing a total of 16. They include an “African-American woman whose husband is a Baptist pastor, a black man who identified himself as a Christian and a white executive who said he thinks Kelly is guilty.” In total, the lawyers will pick 16 panelists total — 12 jurors and four alternates.

Popsquire’s perspective…

Choosing a jury is tricky. The decision about each juror must be made swiftly, often after asking only a few questions. As a result, lawyers often use psychological experts to provide quick feedback about a juror’s demeanor and answers.  In this case, the added element of fame makes the analysis even more difficult.

Popsquire will keep you posted as the jury selection progresses. It likely will take at least a week.

Popsquire knows you are waiting with breath that is baited to learn whether R. Kelly’s child pornography trial gets started today or is delayed yet again. While you wait, check out this detailed timeline.

As always, Popsquire encourages the use of flash cards!

R. Kelly might be kickin’ it free-style for a little while longer. According to the Chicago Sun Times, his attorneys have filed a sealed motion to delay his child pornography trial – scheduled to begin to tomorrow — due to “publicity.” The judge likely will rule on the motion tomorrow, just as jury selection is supposed to start.

Popsquire’s perspective…

“Publicity” is a lame excuse for a delay. Typically, judges might grant trial delays for limited reasons, including discovery of new evidence, lack of a witness’s availability, or a court scheduling conflict.

If we wait for a lack of publicity, this trial will never happen. These charges have been pending since 2002. It’s time to do this!

In honor of tomorrow’s expected ruling, Popsquire dedicates this All American Rejects hit, “Move Along,” to Judge Vincent Gaughan.

According to the Chicago Sun Times, the R. Kelly’s child pornography trial — pending since 2002 — may finally begin this Friday, May 9. In case you forgot about this case, here’s what you need to know:

1. The R&B superstar is accused of videotaping himself having sex with a girl estimated to be 13 or 14.
2. Kelly pleaded not guilty.
3. The big break in the case came in February 2002, when a videotape was sent anonymously to the Sun-Times. It shows a man alleged to be Kelly engaging in various sex acts — including urinating on the underage girl.
4. Prosecutors claim to have identified the girl (now in her 20’s) in the videotape.
5. Kelly’s lawyers plan to argue — and the alleged victim will reportedly testify — that she is not the girl in the tape.
6. A new prosecution witness could undermine that defense. This witness reportedly will testify that: (a) she had a threesome with Kelly and the girl; (b) she can identify the girl; and (c) confirm that the alleged victim was underage at the time of their encounter.
7. Kelly faces up to 15 years in prison, if convicted.

What do you think? Will R. Kelly get out of this? Talk to Popsquire!

If you want to sue R. Kelly or his peeps, get in line!

In addition to the suit filed by a concert promoter described here, R. Kelly’s tour management company now faces this complaint alleging that they failed to pay the so-called tour director more than $75,000 in fees. If you are too lazy to read the complaint, here’s a summary of the allegations…

1. Plaintiff was hired in June 2007 to work at the exclusive tour director, with duties including coordination of concert dates and negotiations with vendors.
2. Plaintiff was supposed to be paid $100,000 — $25k initially and then $5k for each of the remaining 15 performances.
3. Although Plaintiff received the initial payment, the subsequent payments never arrived.
4. Plaintiff now sues for the remaining $75k.

Popsquire’s perspective…

Although TMZ makes a big deal out of the absence of a signed contract, Popsquire is not so bothered. People do business all the time without written contracts and, nevertheless, form binding arrangements.

A written contract would be ideal evidence, but the absence of such is not a deal breaker in the eyes of the law, especially when the parties act consistently with the verbal agreement.

Of course, Popsquire has been a lawyer long enough to know that there are many sides to this story and, as a result, has many questions. Did this tour director actually perform his duties fully? Were there any other agreements made between the parties that amended the alleged original agreement?

According to these court documents obtained by TMZ, a concert promoter has filed a lawsuit against R. Kelly for canceling a Minneapolis concert scheduled for December 20, 2007, the same day he was required to appear in a Chicago court. The lawsuit includes claims for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) fraud.

Popsquire ponders…

When did R. Kelly learn that he had a court appearance that conflicted with the concert?

If he knew before he entered into the alleged contract, then the promoter’s claim for fraud likely will be strong. If he had no idea about the court date when he entered into the contract, R. Kelly may argue that it was impossible for him to perform, thereby excusing his contractual oblgations.

Regardless of the answer to this question, Popsquire wonders how R. Kelly will explain the alleged refusal to re-pay the advanced $120,000 in fees.

Of course, there are so many other things that R. Kelly needs to explain before addressing this issue. Popsquire is taking a number!