Spring Break
Defense ends with a whimper at R. Kelly trial
June 10, 2008
Stacy St. Clair and Kayce T. Ataiyero - Chicago TribuneIssue date: 6/5/08 Section: Real News
CHICAGO _ R. Kelly's lawyers abruptly rested their defense Monday after just two days of testimony aimed at raising doubt as to whether the R&B superstar actually appears in the sex tape at the heart of the child pornography trial.
It was not the defense courthouse observers expected in the high-profile proceeding. There were no surprise witnesses, no gotcha moments, no explanation of how the raunchy video came into existence. During opening statements and the prosecution's case, the defense offered many theories that it didn't follow up.
Instead, Kelly's attorneys seemed content to tether the singer's fate to their intense cross-examinations of state witnesses, a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't mole and the alleged victim's absence. It may not be the stuff of courtroom movie scenes, but effective, real-life defenses rarely are.
"The goal of the defense isn't to prove what happened," said New York attorney Paul DerOhannesian, author of the book "Sexual Assault Trials." "Why assume that burden if you don't have to?"
The prosecution will call just two rebuttal witnesses Tuesday, marking the end of testimony in a near-monthlong trial that offered several dramatic moments and left a few unanswered questions. The jury could begin deliberating as early as Thursday afternoon, Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan said.
Kelly did not testify, in accordance with his constitutional rights. His alleged victim and her parents also stayed off the witness stand, but have previously denied her participation in the 27-minute sex tape.
In the end, experts say the alleged victim's absence will play a larger role in deliberations than Kelly's reticence. Jurors will have to decide for themselves why the alleged victim, now a 23-year-old woman living in the Chicago area, did not contradict prosecutors' assertions during the trial as she did before a grand jury in 2002.
"It's one of the biggest questions hanging over the case," DerOhannesian said. "This case has some deficiencies and the biggest one of them is a lack of a victim."
It was not the defense courthouse observers expected in the high-profile proceeding. There were no surprise witnesses, no gotcha moments, no explanation of how the raunchy video came into existence. During opening statements and the prosecution's case, the defense offered many theories that it didn't follow up.
Instead, Kelly's attorneys seemed content to tether the singer's fate to their intense cross-examinations of state witnesses, a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't mole and the alleged victim's absence. It may not be the stuff of courtroom movie scenes, but effective, real-life defenses rarely are.
"The goal of the defense isn't to prove what happened," said New York attorney Paul DerOhannesian, author of the book "Sexual Assault Trials." "Why assume that burden if you don't have to?"
The prosecution will call just two rebuttal witnesses Tuesday, marking the end of testimony in a near-monthlong trial that offered several dramatic moments and left a few unanswered questions. The jury could begin deliberating as early as Thursday afternoon, Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan said.
Kelly did not testify, in accordance with his constitutional rights. His alleged victim and her parents also stayed off the witness stand, but have previously denied her participation in the 27-minute sex tape.
In the end, experts say the alleged victim's absence will play a larger role in deliberations than Kelly's reticence. Jurors will have to decide for themselves why the alleged victim, now a 23-year-old woman living in the Chicago area, did not contradict prosecutors' assertions during the trial as she did before a grand jury in 2002.
"It's one of the biggest questions hanging over the case," DerOhannesian said. "This case has some deficiencies and the biggest one of them is a lack of a victim."
Be the first to comment on this story