R. Kelly wants the jury to know one of his alleged victims worked as a adult dancer but prosecutors are fighting his request.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the government is going back and forth with the disgraced singer days before his trial is scheduled to start in New York.
The parties are trying to block certain evidence and testimony from being brought up in court. In court docs, the government mentions Kelly is trying to bring up Jane Doe #8’s past employment as an exotic dancer.
He says the information is “is admissible for proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
A judge has yet to rule on the matter. As RadarOnline.com previously reported, prosecutors also filed bombshell claims against Kelly as part of his New York criminal case. Kelly is behind bars while awaiting trial which starts later this week.
The government said they spoke to a man (John Doe #1) who claims the disgraced singer sexually assaulted him when he was 17. He claims to have met Kelly at a local McDonalds in 2006.
In court documents, Doe #1 says he was invited back to the recording studio. Kelly reportedly asked the kid what he was willing to do to be successful. The prosecutors say he proceeded to have sexual contact with Doe #1 in violation of the law.
Prosecutors claim Kelly then asked Doe #1 to introduce him to his friend John Doe #2 who was also 16/17 at the time. The motion read, “Kelly sought to establish a sexual relationship with John Doe #2. (Several years later, Kelly started a sexual relationship with John Doe #2 and required his girlfriends, including Jane Doe #5, to have sex with John Doe #2 upon his command and often filmed those encounters. Kelly sometimes paid John Doe #2 after sexual encounters with him.”
Kelly fired back at the government trying to bring up the new claims. His lawyers claimed the prosecutors were bringing up the new claims way too close to the start of his trial.
He said he didn’t have time to investigate or defend himself. His team also complained their jury questionnaire used during selection was already finalized. They said it did not include a question about the individual’s take on homosexuality.
They claim to fear potential jurors could be bigots and they would never know. A judge has yet to rule on the motion.