R. Kelly sex tape to be made public

August 22, 2007 2:12 p.m. by Joel Cusumano

Just weeks before R. Kelly's child pornography trial is set to begin on September 17, Judge Vincent Gaughan has ruled that the jury and the media will be allowed to view the entire 26-minute video that allegedly shows Kelly, um, relieving himself on an under-aged girl. The judge dismissed the prosecution's complaints that the decision could re-traumatize the young woman due to the fact that she has repeatedly denied that it is actually her in the video. The girl, who R. Kelly refers to as his "goddaughter" in the liner notes to his TP2.com album, is set to testify in Kelly's defense.
Prosecutors also say they hope to bring in an expert witness who has examined the vein patterns of the man in the videotapes hand, which they say is consistent with Kelly's. The defense calls the tactic bad science and not as conclusive as fingerprints. R. Kelly is currently charged 14 counts of child pornography (out of an original 21) and is facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted. As bizarre as the Phil Spector trial has been, this one's sure got the potential to be the celebrity trial to end all celebrity trials.
R. Kelly Sex Tape To Be Made Public, Singer's Hands May Hold Key To Case

Posted in: R. KELLY

11 Responses

August 22, 2007 at 2:53 p.m.

Bradford

I'm confused... how is it legal to let a sex tape that involves a minor be made public to the media?

August 22, 2007 at 3:06 p.m.

Sara Schweizer

I'm perplexed as well. Will they censor her out? That would make for one interesting sex tape, for sure.

August 22, 2007 at 4:04 p.m.

Joel Michael Cusumano

The article doesn't specify who will be able to watch it or if it will be allowed to be broadcast (obviously, if it were, stations would censor out pretty much everything). I'm not a lawyer, so...no idea. I do know that anything considered to be "child pornography" can only be permitted if there is artistic merit or an overriding medical need for it (What? it's public information people!). Also, the laws on so-called "vintage erotica" (anything made prior to the 1977 child pornography law stipulating, among other things, that actors/models must be over the age of 18 to appear naked/having sex/etc. on film) are ambiguous. Pee Wee Herman was prosecuted in 2002 under that law. So, anyways, maybe there's some similar legal precedent that will allow this admittedly unusual case to go forward...

August 22, 2007 at 6:03 p.m.

John Zeiss

Joel, your voluminous knowledge of porn laws frightens me a bit.

August 22, 2007 at 6:07 p.m.

Mike Krolak

i'm just hoping chappelle does some sort of reprise here.

August 22, 2007 at 6:12 p.m.

Joel Michael Cusumano

i frighten myself sometimes. don't quote me on any of those laws tho.

December 16, 2007 at 12:14 p.m.

^kerrvile^

r kelly is a stupid riggen he is a bad name for black people

December 25, 2007 at 11:33 a.m.

lucky

R.kelly hes a good rapper in all but i know every concert he has he sees older wemen why would he think about takin down a little girl i hope she dont be trapped in the closet next "springfield illinois"

December 26, 2007 at 7:50 p.m.

matt

rapper turned raper

March 14, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.

MUFFIN AND BLOODY

U 100 MANE I LIKE OLDER MEN VERY OLD...............

July 30, 2008 at 5:27 p.m.