Monday will mark the beginning of R. Kelly’s federal trial in Chicago, which will feature evidence from a woman he reportedly videotaped having sex with when she was 14 and he was roughly 30.
Kelly reportedly intimidated and bribed the girl to prevent her from testifying against him in his 2008 state child pornography trial. This trial, which is distinct from the 2021 New York case that ended in the singer getting a 30-year jail sentence, is in many ways a retrial of the 2008 trial that was manipulated. The unnamed lady, who is in her 30s, is anticipated to deliver evidence that might send Kelly behind bars. Even one or two convictions in Chicago may add decades to Kelly’s term in New York, which would already keep him incarcerated until he is at least 80 years old.
The federal prosecutors want to play the identical VHS clip that was “Exhibit No. 1” in the 2008 trial. In contrast to 14 years ago, when it was the only film in evidence, at least three other recordings will be shown during the federal trial.
As the jury returned from deliberations on June 13, 2008, Kelly closed his eyes tightly and bent his head. As a court official announced the jury’s verdict and it became apparent that Kelly would be acquitted on all charges, tears flowed down his face and he said, “Thank you, Jesus” many times.
In Chicago, Derrel McDavid and Milton Brown, two Kelly associates, are co-defendants. McDavid is suspected of assisting Kelly in rigging the 2008 trial, while Brown is accused of obtaining child pornographic material. They, like Kelly, have denied any misconduct.
The double jeopardy rule prohibits prosecuting someone for the same offences for which they were previously acquitted. However, this should not apply to the federal trial in Chicago, since prosecutors allege various offenses linked to Minor 1, including obstruction of justice for rigging the 2008 trial. Minor 1 first met Kelly while she was in junior high school in the late 1990s. She had accompanied her aunt, a professional singer who collaborated with Kelly’s music, to his Chicago recording studio. Immediately following this meeting, Minor 1 informed her parents that Kelly would be her godfather.
In the early 2000s, the aunt allegedly showed the parents a video of their daughter having sexual relations with Kelly. A federal document states that when they challenged Kelly, he told them, “You’re either with me or against me.”
The parents saw this as a threat.
The complaint says, “Minor 1’s mother did not want to challenge Kelly’s power, wealth, and influence by disobeying his orders.”
Kelly informed the parents and Minor 1 that they were required to depart Chicago and paid for their airfare to the Bahamas and Cancun. Prosecutors claim that upon their return, Kelly attempted to isolate Minor 1 by transferring her between hotels.
When brought before a state grand jury investigating the video, Minor 1’s parents disputed that she was in it. According to the prosecution, a counsel for Kelly sat in on their testimony and relayed the information to Kelly. Despite the fact that they were unable to summon the girl in the video to testify, prosecutors from the Cook County state’s attorney’s office proceeded with charges and brought the case to trial in 2008 despite this substantial obstacle.
When Kelly realized that Minor 1 was now working with the authorities, he undoubtedly lost whatever confidence he had in fending off identical allegations for a second time. Federal prosecutors tout conviction rates of more over 90 percent, compared to around 65 percent for their state colleagues.
In 2008, his attorneys maintained that the guy in the VHS film who resembled Kelly very much was not Kelly. They demonstrated to the jury that Kelly had a huge mole on his back, then exhibited video clips in which the mole was not apparent.
During closing arguments, one of Kelly’s lawyers, Sam Adam Jr., told the jury that the absence of a mole on the man’s back indicated only one thing: ‘It ain’t him. And if it’s not him, you have no case.’
Some 2008 jurors told reporters after the trial that they were not convinced that the woman in the video was the individual identified by state prosecutors.
This should not be an issue in the federal trial in Chicago. According to the prosecution, both the girl and her parents will testify.
It is unclear what defense Kelly’s legal team will provide this time.
The defense will likely argue that Kelly’s accusers have distorted the facts. In a 2019 interview with CBS This Morning’s Gayle King, Kelly was more direct regarding the women, stating, “All of them are lying.”