R. Kelly Criticizes His Former Attorneys for Not Eradicating Jurors Who Noticed Damning Docuseries
[ad_1]
Disgraced singer R. Kelly is pointing the finger at his former attorneys.
In response to the New York Each day Information, the convicted predator just lately filed an affidavit by which he criticized his ex-legal crew for his or her actions, or lack thereof, in the course of the jury choice course of in his intercourse crimes case. Kelly mentioned there have been a number of jurors who “might” have watched Surviving R. Kelly, dream hampton’s 2019 docuseries on Lifetime that explored long-standing abuse allegations towards him. It went on to win a Peabody Award.
“At sure factors throughout jury choice, I did hear that some jurors might have seen the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries and that involved me enormously,” Kelly wrote. “I raised my issues with my attorneys however they shooed me off. I used to be nothing greater than a bystander within the course of. … There was no technique concerned in selecting the jurors that sat on my jury so far as I might inform. No less than there was no trial technique that concerned my enter.”
The affidavit was filed greater than six months after Kelly was convicted of all counts in his federal racketeering and intercourse trafficking case. Prosecutors alleged the 55-year-old singer had a decades-long historical past of grooming and sexually abusing underage people. He’s scheduled to be sentenced on Could 4, and faces a most sentence of life in jail.
Kelly, who has vehemently denied the abuse allegations, has since employed a brand new lawyer and continues to hunt a retrial. His present lawyer Jennifer Bonjean described Surviving R. Kelly as a “one-sided” sequence that “a number of of the jurors had considered” previous to the case. Due to this, Bonjean argues her consumer was by no means given a good trial.
“As a result of defendant was compelled to defend towards dozens of uncharged claims of abusive and sexual misbehavior—a lot of it lawful albeit unpalatable for some—defendant was stripped of the presumption of innocence and denied a good trial,” Bonjean wrote in a courtroom memo final month. “However that’s not all, Defendant was denied efficient help of counsel when his attorneys didn’t file ample pre-trial objections to the introduction of the mass of overly prejudicial propensity proof and routinely didn’t lodge well timed objections to some (though not all) of the damning bad-act proof.”
[ad_2]
Supply hyperlink