R Kelly has formally filed an appeal in relation to his conviction in the New York courts for establishing and running a criminal enterprise in order to abuse women and teenagers.
The new court filing raises issues with the jury, disputes the testimonies of some of the musician’s victims, and argues that there was lots of evidence presented in court that was not relevant to the crimes he was accused of and which meant he didn’t get a fair hearing.
The New York trial was the first criminal case against Kelly to get to court following the airing of the ‘Surviving R Kelly’ documentary series, which put the spotlight on the allegations of abuse that had been made against the pop star for decades. A second subsequent trial then also took place in Chicago.
He was convicted in both cases, being sentenced to 30 years in jail in New York and 20 years in Chicago. Although those two sentences will mainly be served concurrently, with just one year of the Chicago sentence set to follow the New York jail term.
According to TMZ, in the appeal documents Kelly’s lawyers present various arguments as to why the conviction in the New York case should be overturned or a new trial convened. They argue that at least four of the jurors involved in the case have since admitted to prejudging Kelly’s guilt, with two saying they had watched the ‘Surviving R Kelly’ documentary.
In terms of the testimonies of Kelly’s victims, they allege that some of those witnesses claimed to have had sexual contact with the musician when they were under eighteen, when in fact they were eighteen or older when sexual relations began. For any victims who were underage when they first had sex with Kelly, he insists they told him they were over eighteen at the time.
The lawyers also take issue with evidence being presented during the trial that focused in more general terms on Kelly’s sex life, sexual preferences and sexual health. That evidence was not directly relevant to the crimes he was being tried for, they claim, and was used by the prosecution to further tarnish Kelly’s reputation in order to sway the jury.
It remains to be seen how the New York court responds to the various claims in the appeal – and also if more or less the same arguments are presented when Kelly’s team gets round to appealing the Chicago conviction.