Jury hears opening arguments in second R. Kelly federal trial

Leinenweber agreed to take the argument into consideration during jury selection, and repeatedly asked potential jurors if they had seen the series. But he disagreed that merely seeing the series should be disqualifying. "It's one thing if they avidly watched each episode, but if they've only seen one or two episodes," it's probably insufficient to exclude them, Leinenweber said.

Jury selection ended up lasting through Tuesday afternoon, during which time over 100 potential jurors were questioned. The final 12-person jury consists of four Black women, four white women, two white men and two Black men.

In their opening arguments on Wednesday, prosecutors told the jury that the case revolved around Kelly's four alleged sex tapes and five of his alleged victims, including Jane. The four victims besides Jane were given the trial pseudonyms "Brittany," "Lisa," "Pinky" and "Neah," against the objections of Kelly's defense team. Julien warned the jury they would have to watch the Jane tapes during the course of the trial.

"It's important for you to watch those videos," Julien said, though he emphasized that they would only see "snippets" of them.

In the narrative Julien laid out for the jury, Kelly first met Jane when she was 12 or 13 years old, and preceded to have sex with her "hundreds of times." Julien said Jane went along with it, and eventually convinced Brittany, her 16-year-old friend, to have a threesome with her and Kelly, due to her being star-struck and because she thought Kelly could help her own music career ambitions.

The relationship soon turned abusive, Julien said, with Kelly attempting to control the movements of the young women and prevent them from associating with other men. After Kelly's alleged sex tapes leaked in 2001, prosecutors say he pressured Jane and her family to flee the country, fearing reprisal from the subsequent law enforcement investigation. Kelly, Julien said, was also conspiring with McDavid and Brown to recover the tapes and cover up his sexual misconduct. McDavid is Kelly's former business manager and Brown is his former personal assistant.

Julian said Kelly even eventually convinced Jane - and her father - to lie to a grand jury preceding Kelly's 2008 state trial in Cook County on 21 child pornography counts. Kelly was acquitted on all those counts.

Julien told the jury he was confident such an acquittal would not be happening in this trial.

"We have a burden to prove this indictment beyond a reasonable doubt," Julien said. "We're going to prove to you, all 13 counts, beyond a reasonable doubt."

Bonjean provided a different narrative. In her opening statements, she painted Kelly as being taken advantage of by some of his alleged victims who wanted a piece of his wealth and fame. She also decried the alleged sex tapes as having "no evidentiary value," given their poor quality and the contradictory testimony surrounding them. She pointed out Jane and her father denied it was her in the video, under oath, multiple times to law enforcement and an Illinois grand jury prior to the 2008 trial.

If Jane changed her testimony for this trial, Bonjean said, she would be an admitted perjurer.

"The government's case really does rely on the testimony of liars, extortionists... people who, if you believe the government's case, deal in sex trafficking," she said.

Defense attorneys for McDavid and Brown, Vadim Glozman and Kathleen Leon, respectively, also delivered their opening statements on Wednesday. Both attorneys claimed their clients were simply Kelly's employees, carrying out their assigned tasks.

While federal prosecutors accused McDavid of actively bribing and threatening witnesses with knowledge of Kelly's sex tapes, Glozman said he was just doing the job of any good manager - protecting his client from malicious and unfounded rumors. He denied McDavid ever knew whether Kelly really was having sex with children.

"Throughout the course of this trial, you will see some awful things. Things that will make you want to look away. But ask yourself, what of these things did [McDavid] see before the 2008 trial? The answer is, none of it." Glozman said, adding, "Doing your job is not a crime... Derrel McDavid did his job."

Bonjean moved for a mistrial dismissal based on Glozman's comments. She argued Kelly's co-defendant intended to "point fingers" at him in ways he could not reasonably defend against, and that the three defendants' cases should be split up into separate trials. Leinenweber denied this motion immediately.

Similar to Glozman, Leon characterized Brown as a simple employee; a small-town man without a high school diploma who just did whatever odd jobs Kelly gave him - including retrieving random VHS tapes.

"They want you to believe that Milton Brown was part of this alleged conspiracy. But the evidence, or lack thereof, will show that he was just an assistant... he had no knowledge of any conspiracy," Leon said.

She also urged the jury to consider hindsight bias. What seems obviously suspicious to them would not have occurred to Brown in the early 2000s, as an uneducated man who didn't want to risk his employment by poking into his boss' privacy.

"Brown followed the rules. He kept his head down... this is the lens through which the evidence should be viewed," Leon said.

These comments kicked off what Leinenweber expects to be a four-week trial. Given Kelly's prior 30-year sentence from Brooklyn, it's already a possibility that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. But a conviction on even a handful of these 13 charges in Chicago could add decades to his sentence.

Follow @djbyrnes1

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit