R&B singer R. Kelly leaves the Leighton Criminal Courts Building following a hearing on June 26, 2019 in Chicago. (image via Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Disgraced singer R. Kelly demanded a new trial in his federal child pornography case in Illinois, claiming that a key government witness falsely testified about when she decided to seek restitution from him.
That victim, identified in court only as “Jane,” denied at his trial that she had made any decision about whether to seek money from Kelly.
“In truth, Jane had already hired a lawyer and a team of experts to prepare a restitution package for this court that the government presents in support of its claim that Jane is entitled to a whopping $13M in restitution,” Kelly’s attorney Jennifer Bonjean, who helped overturn comedian Bill Cosby’s conviction last year, wrote in an eight-page motion for a new trial.
Jane’s legal team claims their client deserves $20 million in restitution, and Kelly’s lawyers said in a footnote that they will respond to those estimates in a future filing.
Kelly’s defense said such evidence would have been crucial to undermining Jane’s motive to testify.
“It is difficult to deny that that $13M could be a very strong motivator for victim witnesses and could reflect on the credibility of a witness,” the motion notes.
Kelly’s attorneys imply that Jane is essentially trying get civil damages from a criminal trial.
“Not only did she know of her intent, she apparently invested 10K into assembling an expert team to prepare expert reports that supports an outrageous request for restitution of nearly $20M — as if she was litigating a complex civil case — absent the burden of proof and pesky causation requirements that would be required in a civil litigation,” the motion states.
Filed on Saturday, the motion claims that prosecutors produced documents to the defense one day earlier proving Jane’s knowledge.
“Because the government knew Jane had hired a lawyer and expert team to create a restitution package (for which Jane paid 55K that she seeks to pass along to the Defendant) and failed to disclose this information to the Defendant, and then failed to correct Jane’s false testimony on the subject matter during her trial testimony, Defendant’s Due Process rights under Brady, Giglio, and Napue were violated, and he is entitled to a new trial,” the motion continues.
The twice-convicted musician is currently spending decades in federal prison after juries in New York and Illinois convicted him of crimes, all connected to the serial sexual abuse of women and girls.
In the New York case, Kelly was dealt a 30-year sentence on a federal racketeering charge, which was predicated on the sexual exploitation of children, forced labor, and Mann Act violations.
Though he hasn’t yet been sentenced in Illinois, Kelly faces at least 10 years imprisonment and up 90 years behind bars following guilty verdicts on three counts of child pornography and three counts of child enticement in that case.
Hoping to avert further punishment for her client, Bonjean flagged an exchange with “Jane” in the transcript of her cross-examination by defense counsel.
When asked if she would seek restitution, Jane responded: “I’m still undecided with that,” telling Kelly’s lawyer that it was “not correct” to assume that she was.
“You haven’t decided whether you’re going to seek restitution?” the attorney pressed.
“No,” Jane responded at the time.
Kelly’s lawyers assert that both she and the government knew that was false.
“Jane’s testimony was not truthful when she claimed she was ‘undecided’ about whether she would seek restitution from the Defendant,” the motion states. “She knew full well she was seeking restitution in an extraordinary amount if Defendant was convicted. The government knew it too.”
Jane’s lawyer Christopher L. Brown did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s email requesting comment.
Read the motion below: