US Judge Believes Public Interested in Child Porn
R Kelly (the singer) has been accused of 14 counts of child pornography, including some which I suspect would fall into the "statutory rape" area if US law is anything like UK law. One of the key pieces of evidence in the case is a video which is apparently of Kelly having sex with a 13 year old girl.
The prosecution AND the defence had both asked the judge to restrict the contents of the tape to himself, jurors and the court legal teams. A perfectly sound and reasonsble request I see absolutely no reason to deny. However, Judge Vincent Gaughan has refused on the grounds that there is no "overarching interest" in banning the tape from public view.
The fact this is an illegal tape of child pornography doesn't count as a valid reason to ban it? That's rediculous.
The prosecution AND the defence had both asked the judge to restrict the contents of the tape to himself, jurors and the court legal teams. A perfectly sound and reasonsble request I see absolutely no reason to deny. However, Judge Vincent Gaughan has refused on the grounds that there is no "overarching interest" in banning the tape from public view.
The fact this is an illegal tape of child pornography doesn't count as a valid reason to ban it? That's rediculous.