What's next for R. Kelly as he faces four sets of sex-crime charges?
R. Kelly gave an emotional and explosive talk, defending his
innocence in his first interview since being charged with sexual abuse.
USA TODAY
What's next for jailed Grammy winner and accused sexual predator R. Kelly? On Monday, it was more sex-crime charges.
Now
the question is: How exactly will the U.S. Department of Justice, the
state of Illinois and now the state of Minnesota proceed on four sets of
felonies he's facing?
On Monday in Minneapolis, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said Kelly is being with charged with two felony counts of prostitution and solicitation involving a girl under 18. Kelly is accused of soliciting the girl after meeting her at a concert in 2001 in Minneapolis.
Meanwhile,
prosecutors in Illinois and New York are at the ready. The 52-year-old
singer is accused of multiple sex crimes, including sexual abuse of
underage girls, sex-trafficking, racketeering, production and possession
of child pornography, obstruction of justice, and transportation of
women and girls across state lines for the purposes of illegal sexual
activity.
The latest charges: R. Kelly facing sex crimes charges in Minnesota
He's
pleaded not guilty to all the charges filed up until Monday. His
lawyers have already indicated at least one of their defense strategies
will be to depict him as a victim of accusers who have "groupie
remorse."
Gloria Allred, the attorney who
represents multiple Kelly accusers, including the accuser in the
Minnesota case and other #MeToo movement accusers, held a press
conference in Los Angeles on Monday, accompanied by one of her clients,
to attack Kelly's lawyers for their "insulting and inaccurate" tactics.
"Many
victims of Mr. Kelly were under age and, as a matter of law, cannot
consent to sexual abuse by Mr. Kelly or anyone else," Allred told
reporters. "To suggest that they did consent or have consented … is
extremely upsetting to many victims who were vulnerable and were clearly
victims of a predator and his enablers."
Where is R. Kelly now?
Kelly
is in jail, but it's not clear yet whether he is back in Chicago's
downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center or if he is still at the
Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he was taken on
Thursday for his Friday arraignment in New York.
He
is locked up pending trial because he's been denied bail twice in the
two federal cases, in New York and Illinois. Prosecutors argued that
Kelly should be kept in jail because he's a flight risk and a potential
"danger" to the community, in part because one of the accusers in the
New York case claims he gave her a sexually transmitted disease.
His
lawyers are planning to make another attempt to persuade the judge in
the New York case to release him on his own recognizance, arguing that
he needs to be released to better aid in his defense.
Is it possible to prosecute R. Kelly in three separate cases in two locations at the same time?
Maybe but it's tricky.
"It's rare to have three cases pending at same time – it's not unheard of but it is
unusual," says Michael Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor and DOJ
trial attorney now in private practice in New York as a specialist in
defending white-collar crime cases at the Cole Schotz law firm.
Adam
Citron, a former New York state prosecutor turned defense attorney,
predicts "the usual procedure" will be followed when related state and
federal cases are filed against the same defendant at the same time:
Prosecutors, lawyers and judges will confer and decide on a course of
action.
"They will have the various trials in an
orderly fashion," Citron says. "They will try one case and then the
others. They will not have three trials going on at one time."
Will the two federal cases be merged?
It's
possible but still unclear, says Lara Yeretsian, a criminal defense
attorney in Los Angeles who's been following the case. She thinks the
New York case might be up first.
"He's physically
in New York now, which tells me that they're going to pursue that case
first … and then transfer him to the next court," Yeretsian says. "Each
case would stay where it is unless there are sufficient jurisdictional
grounds to combine the federal cases.
"Tactically,
it would be up to defense counsel to ask to combine the cases, but there
would have to be a connection between the New York and Illinois cases
for them to be combined."
Monu Bedi, a criminal law
professor at Chicago's DePaul University, says he thinks the Chicago
case will come up first. He thinks it's unlikely the federal cases will
merge because the accusers are different, as are some of the alleged
crimes.
"That said, I do think that some witnesses
will overlap and this probably explains why the indictments came out so
close to one another," Bedi says. "These prosecutors are on the same
page and while they might be in different districts, the end goal is the
same – to put Kelly away."
If not, which case will go first?
Which ever is the strongest case.
"There are a lot of dynamics here," says Weinstein. "The defense want the best defensible case
to go first; which of the three is most likely to move quickly, for
instance. Prosecutors look on the flip side and look for the strongest
possible case to prosecute (first)."
Bedi predicts the federal cases will proceed first because they are stronger.
"Unlike
the state case, which only involves allegations of sexual abuse against
underage girls, the federal cases are broader in scope and involve
conspiracy related charges implicating other individuals," Bedi says.
"Generally,
the prosecutors come to an agreement between themselves as to who
should go first, so I would suspect the same thing here."
Will the state of Illinois case be put on hold while the federal cases proceed?
It happens all the time.
"The state usually defers to the feds but it's not always the case," says Weinstein.
Yeretsian
says it's better for Kelly if the federal case goes first because the
state case could be wrapped into it. But the high-profile nature of the
Kelly case means "usual" practices might not be followed, she said.
"The
state could strike a deal with the feds that results in the state
prosecution ending, but this is a high-profile case, so I don't foresee
that happening," she says.
Are authorities 'ganging up' on Kelly with three sets of indictments?
It
might seem that way, but Weinstein believes they can justify the
multiple indictments. They come after authorities in multiple states
failed to prosecute Kelly earlier despite two decades of hints and
allegations about sexual misconduct with underage girls.
"Yes,
there was a time lag of 10 to 15 years, but they're saying even if we
were asleep at the switch, we’re awake now, we’re watching, we have
competent evidence and we're ready to move forward," Weinstein says.
"You can never overlook crimes like this, especially if there is a
pattern. They have new evidence come to light, new witnesses have come
forward and they’re pursuing it."
Kelly has not been indicted in Minnesota.
What do state and federal prosecutors have to say?
Unsurprisingly, little to nothing, at least in public.
Aside
from their usual policy of keeping mouths firmly shut, there's a U.S.
district judge's order in the Northern District of Illinois barring any
further public blabbing by lawyers about the evidence in that case. The
13-count indictment accuses Kelly of sex acts with five
minors, recording some of the acts on videos, conspiracy to intimidate
victims and concealing evidence to obstruct law enforcement.
A
similar protective order is anticipated in the Eastern District of New
York where Kelly just pleaded not guilty to a five-count indictment
charging racketeering, sexual exploitation of children, kidnapping,
forced labor and transportation of women and girls across state lines
for illegal sexual activity.
Cook County State's
Attorney Kim Foxx in Chicago is prosecuting Kelly on multiple
sex-crimes, including aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal
sexual assault by force, aggravated criminal sexual abuse and aggravated
criminal sexual abuse against an accuser between the ages of 13 and 17.
She hasn't said a public word about her case since she first solicited for accusers at a Chicago news conference in January following the airing of the Kelly-damning series "Surviving R. Kelly" on Lifetime.
Foxx
has no reason to talk and plenty of reasons to stay mum: She's been
been under near constant fire since March from politicians, police,
prosecutors, lawyers, judges and scores of ordinary Chicagoans for her
office's abrupt decision to drop a 16-count felony indictment against
"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett.
(He
claimed he was the victim of a racist and homophobic hate attack in
downtown Chicago; the cops said he staged the whole thing and then lied
to police about it.)
Comments
Post a Comment