Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Long Live the Little Man Defense!How R. Kelly got off.

By Josh Levin
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008, at 7:21 PM ET

Read Josh Levin's first set of Dispatches from the R. Kelly trial. And there's more: Levin went back to Chicago for a second round of Dispatches. Click on the audio player below to hear Josh Levin read this entry. You can also download the audio file here.

R. Kelly's child pornography trial wasn't very complicated. On one side, you've got a 27-minute sex tape. This tape shows a man who looks like R. Kelly giving money to, having sex with, and urinating on someone who looks like his goddaughter, a girl who would've been around 14 at the time. All of this takes place in a log-cabin-style sauna room that looks exactly like R. Kelly's log-cabin-style sauna room. On the other side, you've got the Shaggy defense (It wasn't me!), the Little Man defense (It's my head on some other dude's body!), the Sparkle defense (I was framed by a bunch of money-grubbing lowlifes!), and the "ghost sex" defense (I'm actually not sure what the point of this one was, but there were headless people having sex and it was weird and creepy). On Thursday, the jury retired to weigh the evidence. On Friday, they emerged with a verdict: not guilty on all counts. R. Kelly walks, and Little Man becomes the first Wayans brothers movie to contribute to a man's welfare.

To my eyes—and to the eyes of pretty much every other courtroom watcher I talked to—R. Kelly's lawyers played better as a comedy team than as a defense team. I never quite bought, for instance, that a bunch of disgruntled hangers-on would have the energy or the wherewithal to hatch an extortionate scheme that centered on the manufacture and distribution of 30 minutes worth of seamless, Hollywood-quality, digitally crafted faux pornography. What was I missing?

Perhaps I simply paid too much attention to the defense team's razzle-dazzle. Looking back, I suppose it's possible that the jury would've acquitted if the defense had said absolutely nothing. As Kelly's lawyers mentioned multiple times, the alleged victim in this case—now a 23-year-old woman—told a grand jury that it wasn't her. While 15 friends and relatives testified that the girl in question was indeed on the video, neither the alleged victim nor her parents showed up in court to testify for either side. For all of the defense team's zany theories, it was most likely this simple fact that gave the jurors pause. As one juror told the Chicago Tribune, "at some point we said there was a lack of evidence." A VHS tape, it seems, was never going to be enough. The only chance the prosecution had was that Kelly would slip up and re-enact the crime within viewing distance of the jury box.

The defense, I'm guessing, will also send Lisa Van Allen a thank-you note. Van Allen, who testified that she had multiple threesomes with Kelly and the alleged victim, was supposed to be the state's star witness. Whatever the prosecution gained by calling a woman who says she saw Kelly and his goddaughter have sex, they lost a whole lot more as the defense chipped away at Van Allen's credibility. Rather than keeping the jury focused on the tape, state's attorneys Shauna Boliker and Robert Heilingoetter found themselves having to explain away their witness' ample character flaws: relationships with two men convicted of federal bank fraud, her admission that she stole Kelly's Rolex, an alleged attempt to solicit a bribe from the defense's private investigator. The legal lesson here: If your star witness is the kind of character who would have a threesome with R. Kelly, you probably need to find yourself a better star witness.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Josh Levin is a Slate associate editor. You can e-mail him at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

I don't think this is too complicated. The jury heard from the "victim" who didn't seem to think she was a vicitim and decided that was enough. If she wasn't clamoring for justice then what was the point of sending the guy to jail?

--TJA

(To reply, click here.)

(6/13)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Sign of the Rove
Tom Toles | John McCain likes to tell a story about the foundation of his political faith.