R. Kelly's Bid To Appeal His Sex Trafficking Conviction Denied By Federal Judge
R. Kelly is staying in prison on his sex trafficking and racketeering convictions for the required 30 years. His request for appeal was denied by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday (Feb. 12), per AP. The ruling was made after first hearing arguments last March.
The disgraced singer-songwriter was convicted back in 2021.
Kelly's legal representation, Attorney Jennifer Bonjean, said in a statement that she feels the Supreme Court will agree to hear an appeal. She called the 2nd Circuit Court's ruling 'unprecedented,' adding that it gives prosecutors unlimited discretion to apply the racketeering law 'to situations absurdly remote' from the statute's intent.
The court declined to hear his appeal last year regarding his 20-year sentence from his 2022 child sex abuse charges in Chicago. The 2nd Circuit Court refused Kelly's argument that the trial evidence was insufficient and the constitutionality of certain laws presented against him were questionable. The singer also felt four jurors were biased, said the trial judge made 'improper rulings,' and believed that the racketeering charge was also inappropriate.
'Enabled by a constellation of managers, assistants, and other staff for over twenty-five years, Kelly exploited his fame to lure girls and young women into his grasp,' the appeals court said, and mentioned that members of his entourage helped introduce him to underage girls.
The three-judge panel continued, 'Evidence at trial showed that he would isolate them from friends and family, control nearly every aspect of their lives, and abuse them verbally, physically, and sexually.'
The court noted that it was 'neither arbitrary nor irrational' that several accusers who testified at trial said Kelly gave them herpes without disclosing he had the STD, and it was not 'unduly prejudicial or cumulative' that seven of them who were minors at the time of abuse were also allowed to testify.
'None of the testimony was more inflammatory than the charged acts,' the appeals court said. When speaking on letting jurors view graphic videos as evidence of the abuse, the 2nd Circuit stated that it was not 'unfairly prejudicial.' The videos 'were properly admitted to show the means and methods of the enterprise, including the level of control and dominance Kelly had over his victims.'
Bonjean called out one 2nd Circuit judge, Richard J. Sullivan, and agreed with what he described as the majority's 'excellent opinion,' but disagreed with a restitution award given to one victim for a lifetime supply of a suppressive regime of herpes medication. 'This was not restitution. This was an effort by the government to unfairly enrich government witnesses for their testimony,' Bonjean said.
Since being incarcerated, Kelly had paid over half-million dollars to victims, associated fines, and more.
More from VIBE.com
Texas School Teacher And Son Accused Of Sex Trafficking Underage Students
Diddy Rushed To Hospital With Knee Pain While Awaiting Trial
Diddy's Mother Held Sex Parties At Mogul's Childhood Home, Friend Says
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will Trump face another hush money trial after leaving office?
Will there be another hush money trial against Donald Trump after he leaves office? The possibility is raised by the president's pending appeal, which was the subject of a hearing Wednesday. But the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wasn't whether Trump's state conviction will be overturned, but where his attempt to overturn it will proceed: in state court or federal court, with the president pushing for the federal route. The hearing left it unclear what the three-judge panel will decide. But regardless of where the appeal moves forward, the Supreme Court can have the last word. And that last word could be that Trump deserves a new trial, based on its immunity ruling last summer. Before the immunity ruling came down last year, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, for covering up a 2016 election conspiracy involving hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen paid her to stay quiet during the 2016 presidential campaign about her claim that she had sex with Trump, which he denied. He won the election. The Supreme Court declined to halt Trump's sentencing before he retook the White House after winning the 2024 election. Splitting 5-4, the justices said Trump's argument that evidence introduced at the trial violated the immunity ruling can be addressed in his appeal. The majority also cited the fact that he was going to receive an 'unconditional discharge,' a penalty-free sentence as a courtesy to the then-incoming president, which he received before taking office again. Now back in office, Trump is pressing to undo the historic conviction. He's represented by new private lawyers because he named his lawyers who lost the hush money trial, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, to top posts in the Justice Department (which is backing Trump's removal bid). At Wednesday's hearing, his lawyer Jeff Wall, who was a top DOJ lawyer during Trump's first term and is now in private practice, sought to persuade the panel that the case should move to federal court, while a prosecutor from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office said it should stay in state court. More specifically, Trump's lawyers have argued that he's 'entitled to a federal forum to seek relief based on federal constitutional defenses rooted in structural protections for the institution of the Presidency and the Supremacy Clause,' referring to the constitutional provision placing federal law over state law. Bragg has argued, among other things, that the removal issue is moot now that Trump has been sentenced and that the case should stay the normal course through the state appellate process. But whether or not Trump wins or loses his removal bid — we don't know when the panel will decide — the justices can take appeals from state or federal courts. If the appeal reaches the justices again, we know from Trump's failure to halt his sentencing that the four dissenting justices (all Republican appointees) were ready to provide him that extraordinary relief. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority rejecting Trump's motion in January, but at least Roberts, who authored the immunity ruling that Barrett didn't fully join, could form a majority to side with Trump on the merits of his appeal. Whatever the circuit panel decides on removal, it could be a while before the Supreme Court ultimately decides whether Trump's state conviction stands. But whenever that happens, the justices could say that a new trial is warranted; that, in turn, would raise the question of whether the president would have another hush money trial waiting for him when he leaves office. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
R. Kelly's Lawyers Call For Immediate Release Amid Alleged Murder Plot By Prison Officials
R. Kelly's attorneys have filed an emergency motion seeking his immediate release from prison, citing what they describe as a chilling murder-for-hire plot allegedly orchestrated by federal prison officials. According to Variety, the motion, filed on Tuesday (June 10), outlines a disturbing claim that prison authorities attempted to recruit a member of the Aryan Brotherhood to assassinate the disgraced R&B singer in custody. According to the motion, Kelly's legal team is asking that he be removed from prison and placed under home confinement, arguing that his life is in imminent danger. At the center of the filing is a sworn declaration by Mikeal Glenn Stine, a known Aryan Brotherhood leader, who says he was approached by Bureau of Prisons officials and offered freedom in exchange for killing Kelly. Stine, who is reportedly terminally ill, claims he was transferred to Kelly's prison unit in March with full intent to carry out the murder. However, he states that he ultimately had a change of heart and disclosed the alleged plot to Kelly, citing violations of Kelly's attorney-client privilege and his conscience. According to the filing, prison officials were motivated by a desire to prevent Kelly and his attorneys from presenting 'damaging evidence' in court. Stine also alleged he was told he would face arrest but would not remain imprisoned, due to systemic corruption and lack of evidence. 'The threat to Mr. Kelly's life continues each day that no action is taken,' the filing reads. 'More A.B. members are accumulating at his facility. More than one has already been approached about carrying out his murder. One of them will surely do what Mr. Stine has not, thereby burying the truth about what happened in this case along with Robert Kelly.' Kelly, a Chicago native, has been incarcerated since his conviction in September 2021 on nine counts of a superseding indictment that included charges under the Mann Act and racketeering related to the sexual exploitation of children. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In February 2023, he received a separate 20-year sentence for additional child sex crimes, with all but one year to be served from Diddy's Former Assistant Recalls Dream She Had About Diddy And R. Kelly While On The Stand R. Kelly Joins The 'Residuals' Challenge, Sparking Mixed Reactions R. Kelly Sings Two Fan-Favorite Hits Over The Phone From Prison On Podcast
