R. Kelly tells judge at his child pornography trial that he won't testify

[Liddo Annie]

R. Kelly tells judge at his child pornography trial that he won't testify

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO - R. Kelly told the judge his child pornography trial Tuesday that he doesn't plan to testify in his own defence.

After Judge Vincent Gaughan told Kelly he had a right to not take the stand, the R&B singer leaned forward at the defence table with his hands folded and, speaking for the first time at the trial, responded: "I decided not to testify."

Notebooks: Don't pay for shipping

The jury wasn't in the room at the time.

Kelly, 41, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with an underage girl. Both Kelly and the alleged victim, now 23, have denied being on the tape.

Also Tuesday, the judge ruled that jurors can view the sex tape once they begin deliberating.

Click Here

Kelly's lawyers had asked the judge to bar jurors from reviewing the graphic video, saying they worried jurors would overemphasize one piece of evidence. But prosecutors argued the tape is the primary subject of the trial and couldn't be kept from jurors.

"People's Exhibit No. 1 is the actual nucleus of the case ... the evidence centres around this exhibit," said prosecutor Shauna Boliker.

Gaughn agreed, but added that he would instruct the jurors before they begin deliberating that they shouldn't put too much emphasis on the tape alone.

A prosecution witness also took the stand for a second time to rebut defence claims about the tape. The defence and prosecution both have rested their cases but video expert Grant Fredericks' testimony is part of the prosecution's right of rebuttal of arguments made by the defence.

A version of the video that the defence used in presenting their case was misleading because it was such low quality, Fredericks told jurors.

The defence argued that in their version of the tape there is no mole on the back of the man who appeared, proving the man is not Kelly, who has such a mole.

But Fredericks says higher quality versions of the tape clearly show a mole on the man's back.

The defence and prosecutors also sparred in court Tuesday about who made certain copies of the tape and whether that may have undermined the defence's case.

Closing arguments are likely to be delivered Thursday.

? The Canadian Press, 2008

Source:

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article ... ID=2936674

[froggyboy604]

Wouldn't not testifying make him look more guilty?

[Oono]

Wouldn't not testifying make him look more guilty?

Thinking the exact same thing atm. oO

[froggyboy604]

I heard he got aquited of some charges due to a lack of evidence, so his lawyers probably know what they are doing.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 9709.story

[maisia]

Heard he was found not guilty!

[Black Angel]

This guy is nothing more than a glorified pedophile who needs to be locked away from the rest of society for the remainder of his life.

If Joe Schmoe gets time behind bars for possession of kiddie porn, which wouldn't have to be his, then why shouldn't this a**hole? Because he is famous? GMAFB