Disgraced music superstar R. Kelly suffered a major legal setback on Wednesday. The New York Appeals Court rejected his petition challenging his 30-year prison sentence on racketeering and sex trafficking charges. The court’s decision has dealt a blow to his hopes of release. Now the question arises—will R. Kelly approach the Supreme Court against this decision?
R. Kelly’s appeal rejected, sentence upheld
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original conviction and conviction of R&B singer R. Kelly. The decision relates to a 2021 trial in which he was convicted of nine counts of sex trafficking and racketeering. Prosecutors argued that Kelly’s team of managers and assistants, who helped him meet girls and kept them under control, amounted to an organized criminal enterprise.
R. Kelly’s appeal rejected; lawyer expresses disappointment
According to online court records reviewed by USA TODAY, the ruling clearly stated, “We have considered all of the arguments raised by Kelly in his appeal and have concluded that they do not stand on any solid ground.”
In March last year, R. Kelly’s legal team filed an appeal to overturn his conviction or at least grant a new trial. The appeal primarily challenged the racketeering law that was used to convict the singer.
Now, after the appeal was rejected, Kelly’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, has expressed disappointment over the decision. However, she indicated that R. Kelly may appeal his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court.
R. Kelly’s lawyer’s big statement, possibility of appeal in Supreme Court
R. Kelly’s lawyer Jennifer Bonjean strongly opposed the decision and said, “We believe that the Supreme Court of the United States will be interested in reviewing this unprecedented decision. This decision gives the government unlimited power to apply the RICO law to circumstances that are far from the actual purpose of this law.”
She further said that “RICO law was created to punish organized crime, not individual conduct. This decision increases the possibility of abuse of RICO law, which can give more power to the prosecution than necessary.”
After this statement, it is being speculated that R. Kelly’s legal team can now file an appeal in the US Supreme Court.
Court’s Big Ruling: R. Kelly Leveraged Celebrity to Victimize Young Women to Abuse
R. Kelly’s appeal challenged several aspects of his 2021 conviction, including evidence supporting convictions under racketeering and the Mann Act. In addition to racketeering, Kelly was also found guilty of violating the Mann Act, which makes it illegal to transport a person across state borders “for any immoral purpose.”
However, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said there was “substantial evidence to support each of Kelly’s convictions, including his Mann Act convictions under state and federal violations.”
The ruling also said, “For more than 25 years, supported by a gang of managers, assistants, and other employees, Kelly used his fame to lure girls and young women into his clutches.” The court also noted that during the trial it was proven that he isolated these women from their families and friends, controlled nearly every aspect of their lives, and physically, verbally, and sexually abused them.
This verdict further solidifies the serious allegations against R. Kelly and could prove to be a turning point in the legal process.
Kelly’s Legal Troubles: Convicted on Child Pornography Charges
“I Believe I Can Fly” singer R. Kelly’s legal troubles continue to mount. Recently, in a second federal trial verdict, R. Kelly was convicted on child pornography charges. Following the verdict, his legal team questioned the jury selection process. They argued that four jurors were biased because they had already learned about the case and were influenced by the media, as well as some who held opinions on STDs.
However, the appeals court rejected this argument, stating that “the U.S. District Court followed a thorough and detailed review process before selecting jurors.” This included a 108-question questionnaire and personal questioning.
“The record demonstrates that each juror was put under intense questioning by the district judge during personal voir dire,” the court wrote in its decision. The district court then determined that each juror was able to decide the case fairly, as everyone was given ample opportunity to explain their position.
This decision could further complicate R. Kelly’s legal situation, as he has now been found guilty of serious child pornography charges.
Appeals Court ruling: ‘Satisfied’ with R. Kelly’s restitution payments to victims
Another important ruling has come out in the ongoing legal battle against R. Kelly. The Appeals Court has found no doubt in the singer’s restitution payments to two victims who alleged they contracted infections such as herpes during sexual activity with him.
In a statement to USA Today, Kelly’s attorney Jennifer Bonjean said, “Kelly’s primary accuser was paid a windfall of nearly $300,000 for a lifetime supply of the brand-name herpes medication, Valtrex, even though it is not certain she will use the money for that purpose.”
Bonjean further questioned the payment, saying, “The generic version of the drug is much cheaper. This was not a quid pro quo; rather, it was an attempt to financially enrich government witnesses for their testimony.”
The singer’s victims, Jayne and Stephanie, both alleged that R. Kelly began having sexual relations with them when they were underage. Jayne was paid more than $281,000 in reimbursement for her herpes treatment, while Stephanie received more than $70,000.
The case is one filed by R. The ongoing legal battle against Kelly could be further complicated as new disputes continue to arise over reimbursement payments.
R. Kelly Appeal: Court Upholds Restitution Order On Victim’s Medical Expenses
R. Kelly, whose song “Trapped in the Closet” brought him recognition, was claiming in his appeal that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the restitution order for Jayne. The singer argued that the government failed to prove that the woman would use the expensive brand-name drug Valtrex instead of the cheaper generic drug valacyclovir to treat herpes.
However, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument and ruled that it was “satisfied” with the restitution order issued by the district court. The court stated, “Covering Jane’s cost for a brand-name drug does not provide her with a windfall. Jane would not have to purchase herpes medication if Kelly had not infected her with the virus.”
Further, the decision stated that “Like the district court, we are aware of no authority that requires a victim to ‘pursue the cheapest alternative to minimize the defendant’s restitution costs.'”
This decision establishes that courts appropriately determine the amount of treatment payments a victim receives to cover their financial losses while ensuring that the victim does not suffer any additional hardship as a result of the defendant’s crime.
