R. Kelly hopes key technicality will move Supreme Court justices to overturn convictions for sexually abusing teenage girls in the 1990s

R H

Source: lawandcrime.com 7/30/24

Robert Sylvester Kelly, the R&B singer better known as R. Kelly, is looking to overturn his Illinois federal convictions for child pornography and the sexual abuse of teenage girls by making the case to the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress, when extending the statute of limitations on such offenses in 2003, did not “expressly” intend to retroactively punish him for conduct going back to the 1990s.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ultimately, it is better to let 1,000 guilty people walk away, then fraudulently convict 1. Retroactively extending the Statutes of Limitations back to include crimes he may have committed far enough in the past he could not be charged for them without the extension, is fraudulent IMO. Based on the behaviors described in his convictions, and accusations of additional behaviors for which he was not convicted, he is a tempting candidate for an exception to this rule. However, once you start making exceptions, this rule will quickly become meaningless.

Accusations, no matter how old, instantly become charges with instant convictions in the Court of Public Opinion, if nowhere else. Then it’s just a Hop, Skip and a few million Tweets away from instant “Presumption of Guilt Registration”! It’s “Not punishment”, so no need for a Conviction, just a (Popular) Presumption of Guilt, even if found “Not guilty” in a Court of Law! You think America wouldn’t throw Kelly (Woody/Cosby/ Lauer/Spacey/Singer/Clinton/Franken/Gaetz/Thomas/Kavanaugh/Trump/etc) on the Registry if they could by Popular Decree? None of them? I do.

1
Reply
View Replies (3)

They have made other retroactive actions regarding this related topic, why would they stop now?

1
Reply
View Replies (2)

I don’t know about everyone else on the court, but Justice Thomas likely wants to know if the man can sing for his billionaire donors, so they can shower more lavish gifts onto the supreme court judge

1
Reply

The bottom line is the legislature cannot enact laws and apply them retroactively because the Constitution explicitly forbids it.

2
Reply
View Replies (1)