R. Kelly Conviction Affirmed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the criminal conviction of R. Kelly

Defendant-appellant Robert Sylvester Kelly, a recording artist and singer also known as R. Kelly, appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.), following a six-week jury trial, convicting him of racketeering in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and transportation and coercion in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421(a), 2422(a), 2422(b), and 2423(a). Enabled by a constellation of managers, assistants, and other staff for over twenty-five years, Kelly exploited his fame to lure girls and young women into his grasp. Evidence at trial showed that he would isolate them from friends and family, control nearly every aspect of their lives, and abuse them verbally, physically, and sexually.

On appeal, Kelly challenges primarily (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his racketeering and Mann Act convictions, including the underlying state and federal violations upon which they are predicated; (2) the constitutionality of certain of those underlying state laws; (3) the empaneling of four jurors who were allegedly biased against him; (4) the district court’s rulings on the admission of certain evidence at trial; and (5) its order of restitution and the seizure of funds in his Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate account. We conclude that (1) there was sufficient evidence to support each of Kelly’s convictions, including for the state and federal violations underlying his Mann Act convictions; (2) the New York state law — upon which some of the Mann Act violations were predicated — was constitutional as applied to Kelly and Kelly’s challenges to the California state law — upon which some of the other Mann Act violations were predicated — are untimely; (3) the evidence did not support Kelly’s claim that the four jurors Kelly challenges were biased against him or that trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution and the seizure of Kelly’s BOP inmate count funds. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Victims

The indictment referenced six victims. Because five are directly relevant to the appeal, we provide more detail on those individuals — Aaliyah, Stephanie, Jane, Jerhonda, and Faith.

RICO

The record is replete with evidence that Kelly was able to commit the predicate acts because he was the head of a close-knit group of associates and he controlled the affairs of the enterprise. For instance, members of Kelly’s entourage participated directly in a predicate act when they devised a plan for Kelly to marry Aaliyah when she was underage. Fearing that Aaliyah was pregnant, Kelly told Smith that he “needed to marry Aaliyah to protect himself,” Kelly App’x at 599, and thereafter Smith and McDavid bribed a local clerk to obtain false identification for Aaliyah, in violation of Illinois criminal bribery laws.

Likewise, members of Kelly’s entourage helped introduce him to underage girls. With respect to Stephanie, a member of Kelly’s entourage approached her at a McDonald’s in 1998 and asked her age. Stephanie replied that she was sixteen. Even though Stephanie had disclosed that she was underage, Kelly’s associate handed her a slip of paper with a phone number on it and told Stephanie that Kelly — who was watching the interaction from a distance — wanted to meet her. Stephanie ultimately met Kelly for the first time in 1999, when she was seventeen years old.

Kelly also directed his staff to facilitate his abuse of girls in violation of the Mann Act. Employees arranged for girls’ transportation to locations around the country to engage in sex with Kelly, enforced Kelly’s strict rules for the girls, and coordinated STD treatment for Kelly and his victims. As an example, Copeland received Jane’s STD test results directly from the doctor, and runners picked up Kelly’s herpes medication. Juice also knew about Kelly’s herpes and took girls to get tested for STDs. There is also overwhelming evidence that Kelly was further enabled to gain access to his victims because of his fame as a renowned singer and performer, a reputation his associates helped him maintain. Indeed, the evidence indicates that Kelly principally relied on his reputation to entice young girls into his orbit — he dangled his influence and clout in the industry to reach his victims. A rational factfinder could therefore have found that the government proved the requisite nexus between the RICO enterprise and predicate racketeering acts.

Kelly’s final challenge to his RICO conviction is that the enterprise was indistinct from him because it “had no function unrelated to [him].” Kelly Br. at 38. A defendant charged under RICO must be distinct from the enterprise, such that the entity “is not simply the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd., 533 U.S. at 161. Accordingly, we have rejected civil RICO claims where the defendant is a corporate entity and the enterprise is made up of the corporation’s employees acting in the course of their employment. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here employees of a corporation associate together to commit a pattern of predicate acts in the course of their employment and on behalf of the corporation, the employees in association with the corporation do not form an enterprise distinct from the corporation.”).

Kelly, however, is not a corporate entity. “

Mann Act

Kelly argues that there was insufficient evidence that he transported Jane and Faith with the intent of exposing them to herpes, in violation of the Mann Act. He contends that the illegal nature of the sexual activity was incidental to the trips, and that he can be found to have violated the Mann Act only if he specifically intended to expose them to herpes. Kelly also argues that he did not coerce or entice Jane or Faith to travel to see him in violation of the Mann Act. We are not persuaded.

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I join the majority’s excellent opinion with respect to nearly all of defendant Robert Sylvester Kelly’s challenges on appeal. I write separately only to address what is, in my view, the district court’s error in calculating victim Jane’s restitution award. I agree with the majority that the government met its burden of proving that Jane was infected with herpes as a result of the charged conduct and that the district court was within its discretion to award Jane restitution for a suppressive regime of herpes medication. Nevertheless, I believe that the district court abused its discretion in calculating Jane’s restitution based on a lifetime supply of the brand-name drug, Valtrex, rather than the significantly cheaper generic drug, valacyclovir. Accordingly, I would remand for the district court to either make additional findings or modify the restitution award.

(Mike Frisch)