(The VH1 Blog knows very little about the law. So we’ve solicited Mark Muro, a founder of the California law firm Muro & Lampe, Inc., to keep a running tab on which side has the advantage in the R. Kelly child pornography trial. Check back daily for updates.)
The pied piper of R&B, R. Kelly, finally had his child pornography trial open in Chicago six years after he was initially indicted. His defense? A case of mistaken identity. “Robert Kelly is not on that tape,” Kelly?s attorney, Sam Adam Jr., told the jury. “I stand before you on May 20, 2008, to tell you [R. Kelly] is not on that tape.” Adam claims that a mole on Kelly’s back will prove the singer’s innocence. Adam also claims that the alleged victim (whom he referred to as a “wonderful person”) is not in the tape; but instead, a paid prostitute. The defense appears to involve a claim of two layers of mistaken identity.
The tape was played for the jury this afternoon over Adam?s objection. In light of the contention that the tape provides visual evidence that Kelly is not depicted in the tape, I’m confused as to the attempts to keep the tape out of evidence. Seeing as the video is widely known as “The R. Kelly Sex Tape,” the defense better hope that the jurors have been living under a rock for the last six years. I anticipate the making of yet another closing argument culminating in a rhyme ala O.J. Simpson’s lawyer. (“If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.”) Here’s a couple of suggestions: “With no mole on the back, the prosecution’s case must crack” or “No mole on the back, the case is whack.” — Mark Muro
Defense = -1
Prosecution = 0