Why R. Kelly Was Acquitted
Lack of testimony from alleged victim sowed doubt in jurors' minds
By Rob Quinn,  Newser Staff
Posted Jun 14, 2008 7:45 AM CDT
R&B singer R. Kelly leaves the Cook County Criminal Court Building Friday, June 13, 2008, in Chicago after a jury found him not guilty on all counts in his child pornography trial.   (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
camera-icon View 2 more images

(Newser) – Jurors in the R. Kelly trial say it was the lack of testimony from the alleged victim—or  her parents—that swayed them towards acquittal, Time reports. One juror said he was sure it was Kelly in the sex tape at the heart of the case, but wasn't convinced of the girl's identity. And jurors said the R. Kelly mole that was the object of endless hours of testimony was a non-issue: "The mole played more of a role for the press. It never came up in deliberations." Five of the jurors had been ready to convict at one point.

Prosecutors defended their decision not to call the girl, 13 at the time Kelly allegedly filmed himself having sex with her, to the stand. "We weren't going to open new wounds,"  a state attorney said. "Child pornography can be extremely difficult to prove—especially because the victims may not consider themselves to be victims," he added. "But we, as a community, have to stand up for them."