How Aaliyah Factored in R. Kelly Losing His Appeal
R. Kelly's latest appeal to overturn his New York sex trafficking and racketeering conviction has been denied. According to recent reports, the disgraced musician's convictions and 30-year prison sentence were upheld this week in federal appeals court, despite his argument through his attorneys that he did not run a racketeering enterprise because his employees were unaware of the age of his young victims.
The decision that came Wednesday rejected his argument, as the New York Daily News reports from an obtained 85-page document. 'The record is replete with evidence that Kelly was able to commit the predicate acts because he was the head of a close-knit group of associates and he controlled the affairs of the enterprise,' Judge Denny Chin wrote when explaining Wednesday's decision, upholding Kelly's sentencing from June 2022.
The statement goes on to cite a very specific example in the decision: Kelly's controversial marriage to the late Aaliyah. As we have reported, Kelly shockingly married Aaliyah back in 1994. Yes, that means Aaliyah was 15 and Kelly was a 27-year-old man.
'For instance, members of Kelly's entourage participated directly in a predicate act when they devised a plan for Kelly to marry Aaliyah when she was underage,' the decision reads, rejecting the argument that those around him were unaware of the age differences.
Chin also wrote that those in Kelly's inner circle played an important role in 'recruiting his victims and keeping them quiet and under his thumb.'
Kelly also reportedly argued in his appeal that four of the jurors were 'biased against him' due to the high publicity surrounding his case following the release of the 2019 'Surviving R. Kelly' documentary (that two jurors admitted to watching).
The appeals court rejected this as well, however, agreeing that 'after giving each side an opportunity to request further questioning,' Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Ann Donnelly was correct in deciding that every juror could be 'impartial when deciding the case.'
As the New York Daily News reports, Kelly has lost many appeals, including every appeal in Chicago since his sentencing in 2022. Just this last October, as we reported, the Supreme Court rejected also his appeal.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lula vows to defend Brazil's Supreme Court as US threatens judge
By Manuela Andreoni SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva vowed on Tuesday to defend his country's Supreme Court against attacks from the United States, in a sharp rebuke of potential sanctions from Washington against one of the top court's justices. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told U.S. lawmakers last month that President Donald Trump could slap economic sanctions on the judge overseeing the trial of Brazil's ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally accused of plotting a coup. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," Lula told reporters, adding that the United States needs to understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has drawn fierce criticism from the Brazilian right while leading the court's aggressive curbing of what he has called threats to Brazil's democracy, both online and in an alleged coup plot. He started by ordering social media companies to take down posts from Bolsonaro supporters that he considered threats to democratic institutions, even suspending Elon Musk's social media platform X in Brazil until it caved to his orders. Musk and other right-wing platforms have accused Moraes of censorship. The judge also ordered the arrest of a conservative lawmaker who posted a video attacking the Supreme Court and oversaw a case against Bolsonaro supporters who vandalized government buildings after the former president lost the election. Moraes is now overseeing a case in which Bolsonaro is accused of leading an attempt to overthrow Brazil's democracy to reverse his loss in the 2022 presidential elections. He presided over the electoral court decision barring Bolsonaro from running for public office until 2030 due to behavior in that campaign. Several of those cases have involved criticism, threats and even an alleged assassination attempt targeting Moraes himself, but the Supreme Court has backed the judge's refusal to recuse himself, drawing further complaints from his critics. The setbacks for Bolsonaro's far-right movement led his son, lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, to take a leave from Brazil's Congress this year and move to the United States, where he vowed to lead a campaign against Moraes. Rubio's comments in Congress about Moraes were prompted by questions by Florida House Representative Cory Mills, with whom Eduardo Bolsonaro said he had met days earlier. Mills asked Rubio if he was considering sanctions against Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. president to impose economic sanctions against foreigners with a record of corruption or human rights abuses. "There is a great possibility that will happen," Rubio said. Eduardo Bolsonaro's role in advocating retribution against Moraes prompted the judge to open an investigation against the lawmaker, after prosecutors alleged judicial interference. Lula, in remarks to reporters on Tuesday, compared Eduardo Bolsonaro's efforts to "terrorist practices," adding that the lawmaker had left Congress to "try to lick Trump's boots."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NYC jury to decide Weinstein's fate following closing arguments
June 3 (UPI) -- Closing arguments got underway Tuesday after former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein's legal defense team rested in the retrial of his vacatedrape conviction in New York. The retrial began six weeks ago with Weinstein, 73, charged with rape and sex crimes against three women accusers, who accused him of attacking them while in Manhattan between 2006 and 2013. He had been convicted of rape and criminal sexual assault by a New York jury five years ago and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. An appellate court overturned the conviction a year ago with a 4-3 ruling due to a trial judge improperly allowing "irrelevant" and "prejudicial" testimony and other evidence. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office would refile charges against Weinstein. The current trial accuses Weinstein of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act and one count of third-degree rape. A jury of seven women and two men likely will begin deliberations by the end of the day on Tuesday. Prosecutors have argued Weinstein used his position in Hollywood to control the three alleged victims, who were trying to find work in television and film. His accusers are Miriam Haley, Jessica Mann and Kaja Sokola, who testified against Weinstein and said they were young and seeking careers in Hollywood with Weinstein's help. Prosecutors brought 24 witnesses before the court to testify against Weinstein, whose legal team has argued his accusers engaged in consensual acts. The witnesses included former assistants to Weinstein; relatives and friends of his accusers; and hotel workers at locations where he is accused of assaulting the alleged victims. None of the witnesses who triggered the appellate court's ruling overturning Weinstein's conviction testified in the current trial. Weinstein also did not testify in the current or prior trial. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. If found guilty on any of the charges, Weinstein likely will spend the rest of his life in prison. Even if found innocent, Weinstein would remain imprisoned for his 2022 conviction on similar charges in a separate case in California. His legal team has appealed that conviction. Weinstein's downfall significantly contributed to the rise of the #MeToo movement in 2017 after The New York Times and the New York Daily News reported details of the accusations against him. Others formerly accused of sexual misconduct include actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Louis C.K., and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Rapper and music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs is being tried in federal court in Manhattan on similar charges.
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Maryland ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and a Rhode Island ban on high-capacity magazines to remain in effect by declining two cases challenging the state bans on Monday. According to Fox News, the cases against Maryland's ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines were appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts previously upheld the bans. The outlet noted that Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Alito indicated that they would have agreed to review the cases challenging the two state bans. Fox News reported that the Supreme Court's decision not to review Maryland's ban against AR-15 rifles upholds the previous ruling made by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which claimed that states banning AR-15 rifles did not violate the Second Amendment. According to the outlet, the 4th Circuit claimed that allowing AR-15 rifles to be protected under the Constitution based on the weapon's popularity would potentially allow any weapon to 'gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it.' READ MORE: New gun law bans some semiautomatic guns in Colorado In a Monday statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that states such as Maryland that ban U.S. citizens from owning AR-15 rifles are 'somewhat of an outlier' since 41 of the 50 states allow people to purchase AR-15 rifles. 'In short, under this Court's precedents, the Fourth Circuit's decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review,' Kavanaugh wrote. He added, 'Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term of two.' Thomas expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision not to review appeals against Maryland and Rhode Island's bans on Monday. Thomas claimed that the Fourth Circuit put 'too high a burden on the challengers to show that the Second Amendment presumptively protected their conduct. And, its determination that AR-15s are dangerous and unusual does not withstand scrutiny.' 'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,' Thomas wrote. 'That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.'
