Why the Chief Defense Lawyer Didn’t Seek a Mistrial in the R. Kelly Case
Defense lawyer Edward Genson was so confident that the trial of his client R. Kelly was going well that he decided not to ask for a mistrial when prosecutors disclosed they gave the jurors wrong information.
The gamble paid off, the National Law Journal reports. Earlier this month the rhythm and blues superstar was acquitted of all four counts in his child pornography trial. Jurors saw a DVD that prosecutors claimed was an exact copy of a videotape showing a sexual encounter between Kelly and an alleged underage victim. Later prosecutors told the judge and defense lawyers that the DVD was not an exact copy.
Genson, the lead defense lawyer, opted to let the trial continue. “I didn’t want a new trial,” he told the National Law Journal. “We felt we were doing so well. We didn’t want to give up what we had.”
Genson also disclosed that he let another defense lawyer, 35-year-old Sam Adam Jr., handle closing arguments, partly because his relatively young age would allow him to connect better with a younger jury.
Meanwhile the Chicago Defender is reporting that one of the jurors in the case “threw a tantrum” at dinner in the closing days of the trial. He reportedly pounded on the table and said, “All I want is a couple of beers and a hamburger. That’s all the f— I want,” the newspaper says, quoting a sheriff’s deputy’s version of the events.
Judge Vincent Gaughan allowed the juror to remain but told him no more outbursts would be tolerated. Jurors reached a decision to acquit only hours later, the newspaper said.
