R. Kelly prosecutors ask to keep some accusers anonymous at trial
When R. KellyThe racketeering trial begins in New York next month, federal prosecutors said on Saturday in a court file that three alleged anonymous victims are expected to provide or be the subject of “sensitive and personal testimony regarding unlawful sexual abuse, sexual touching and other acts “. committed by the singer. Prosecutors argued that these Jane Doe witnesses should be allowed to testify under pseudonyms or only their first names in order to protect their identity. They also demanded that open court references to these alleged victims be limited to their first names or pseudonyms, and that the court prevent public disclosure of their addresses, workplaces and names of their family members.
Kelly has been charged with racketeering and related acts, including sexual exploitation of a child, kidnapping and transportation of minors and others for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. He denied all the charges. Prosecutors wrote in the file that Jane Doe # 2 in the case is expected to testify that an associate of Kelly met her around 1999 in Chicago when she was 16, and that Kelly later filmed herself in having sex with her. The note states that Jane Doe # 3 is expected to testify that she met Kelly in 2003 when she was in her early twenties and worked at a radio station as an intern. Kelly invited her to Chicago for interview, where she was reportedly locked in a room with no food for about three days. According to prosecutors, she woke up at one point with Kelly in the room and without her underwear, and realized that Kelly had sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious. The file indicated that Jane Doe # 5 met Kelly around 2015 in Florida when she was 17, and that Kelly filmed herself sleeping with her. Prosecutors said she contracted a sexually transmitted disease as a result and was also coerced into engaging in sexual activity with numerous other women and a man.
“The limited protections requested by the government for the personal identifiers of victim-witnesses are reasonable, necessary and appropriate,” prosecutors said, “to protect their safety and well-being, to avoid harassment of victim-witnesses by the press and others, and prevent undue embarrassment and other negative consequences, such as retaliation from defendant’s supporters, the need to relocate or loss of employment. Citing extensive media coverage and social media interest To date, they have argued that the potential scrutiny of alleged victims will only increase during Kelly’s trial. Prosecutors said such attention included attempts to identify the Jane Does named in her deed. prosecution and other potential witnesses.
âRequiring victims of sex crimes to give their names in public could dampen their willingness to testify, lest their personal stories be made public, and the embarrassment and humiliation that such publicity could cause them while ‘they’re rebuilding their lives,’ the record said. “In addition, a decision requiring victim-witnesses to publicly disclose their full identity may cause other victims, including underage victims, to avoid seeking law enforcement assistance for fear that they will come forward. exposes them to further harassment and embarrassment, as well as retaliation from supporters of an accused.
More great stories from Vanity Fair
– A season of messy vaccinated marriages has arrived
– How Harry and Meghan decided on Lilibet Diana’s name
– Black Joy comes to Shakespeare in the park
– Even more details on Kanye West and Irina Shayk emerge
– Bennifer’s story really has it all
– Before the tribute to Diana, Harry and William are still working on their relationship
– Tommy Dorfman on rewriting queer stories and the smell of sweat
– Extract from the archive: A tour of the best DJs in the world
– Sign up for the “Royal Watch” newsletter to receive all discussions from Kensington Palace and beyond.