##### R. Kelly’s Appeal Denied by Court, Considering Supreme Court Challenge Next #####
In March, R. Kelly’s legal team initiated an appeal to overturn his conviction based on racketeering charges. The team sought either a reversal of his conviction or a retrial. Jennifer Bonjean, Kelly’s attorney, expressed disappointment over the court’s ruling and hinted at a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bonjean criticized the decision granting broad discretion to apply the RICO statute, arguing that it goes against the intent of the law meant for organized crime, not individual behavior. Kelly was convicted in 2021 on various charges, including racketeering and violating the Mann Act.
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Kelly’s convictions, citing substantial evidence supporting the charges. The court stated that Kelly, with the assistance of his team, had exploited his fame to manipulate and abuse young women over two decades. Kelly and his legal team also raised concerns about the impartiality of some jurors involved in the trial, but the appeals court affirmed that the selection process was thorough and fair.
Moreover, Kelly contested the restitution payments made to two victims who contracted herpes during their sexual encounters with him. Bonjean criticized the substantial amount awarded to one victim for medication costs, arguing that it was excessive and intended to benefit the witnesses financially rather than provide rightful compensation.
Kelly’s legal battles continue as he explores further legal options, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction and seek a retrial.
Kelly’s victims, Jane and Stephanie, have both come forward with allegations that the singer engaged in sexual relationships with them when they were underage. Jane was granted over $281,000 in restitution to cover the costs of her herpes treatment, while Stephanie received over $70,000. R. Kelly, the artist behind “Trapped in the Closet,” contested the district court’s decision to order restitution for Jane, arguing in his appeal that the court had overstepped its bounds. One of his points was that the government had not sufficiently proven that Jane would opt for Valtrex, a name-brand drug, over the generic valacyclovir for her herpes treatment.
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the district court’s ruling on restitution, expressing satisfaction with the decision to provide funds for a name-brand medication. The appellate court emphasized that covering the costs of a name-brand drug for Jane was not an excessive benefit, stating, “Jane would not have needed to procure herpes medication if Kelly had not transmitted the virus to her.” Furthermore, the court noted that there is no legal requirement for a victim to choose the most inexpensive option available to reduce a defendant’s restitution obligations.
In conclusion, the court’s decision was in favor of maintaining the restitution order for Jane, highlighting the responsibility of the perpetrator in shouldering the financial repercussions of their actions. This article, written by Elise Brisco and originally published on USA TODAY, reports on the denial of R. Kelly’s appeal of his prison sentence, affirming his conviction.
