Chicago Area Local News

CHICAGO (CBS) ― Jurors in the R. Kelly trial went home Thursday night after deliberating for about three hours without handing down a verdict. Some said that's a good sign for the singer, but others weren't so sure.

During the trial, Kelly's expression never changed, whether it had been a good day in court or a bad one, never showed whether he felt the pressure of his fate now being in the hands of the jury.

That jury heard 12 witnesses identify him as the man on a 27-minute sex tape and 14 witnesses identify the girl on the tape as a 13- or 14-year-old, yet failed to reach a quick verdict in the R&B superstar's child pornography trial.

CBS 2 Legal Analyst Irv Miller said, "A lot of people who have seen the entire trial say this is a slam dunk guilty and others are saying, 'Hey, listen, there's reasonable doubt there.' There's issues in this case and, apparently, that's being reflected back in the jury room also."

In that jury room, early indications were that there's debate over the prosecution's star witness.

Lisa Van Allen was the only one who claimed she actually saw Kelly and the alleged victim engaged in sex. Van Allen claimed that she was there and actually took part in a separate sexual encounter with Kelly and the girl.

Kelly's attorneys called her a liar, maintaining her claims were part of an extortion plot. The jury asked the judge for a transcript of her testimony.

Miller said, "It's my belief that because they want to see the transcript, they have a disagreement as to what she said and that means they're not in agreement as to the entire outcome of the case. There's different camps there – probably some for guilty, some for not guilty – and they want to convince each other that the other is right and the way to do that is by having the transcript."

Judge Vincent Gaughan denied that request, but after jurors were dismissed from the courtroom, he told attorneys to have those transcripts ready on Friday.

The defense has been pushing its arguments that Kelly was being framed for money and revenge. The prosecution said the tape speaks for itself, but the failure to reach a quick verdict seems to indicate the jurors believe the tape alone may not be enough.

"I think it's interesting that the jurors decided to go home really early today; as a matter of fact, not even go home, but go to a strange hotel. What I suspect happened is they went back to deliberate and there's two camps back there and they're in total disagreement as to what the verdict should be," Miller said. "And the way they're resolving their disagreement tonight is they're saying 'Let's sleep on it,' and that's why they're going to come back tomorrow and whether or not they're gonna have a verdict or continue with disagreement, only time will tell."

Prosecutors Show Jurors Sex Tape Again

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, prosecutors replayed the graphic sex tape in which they say Kelly is the man having sex with a girl as young as 13.

They worked to lay to rest any doubts in jurors' minds that the singer and an underage female are on the video.

As the video played, Assistant State's Attorney Shauna Boliker told jurors the man on the tape is Kelly -- who denies accusations he is in the video -- and that he controlled the encounter.

"We're going to see his direction," Boliker said. He is "directing her to dance, where to stand, when to stop urinating," she said.

At one point in the video, entered into evidence as "People's Exhibit No. 1," the female dances and urinates on the floor -- the man out of view.

Back in view, he has sex with her. In one scene near the end of the video, alluded to in one count of the indictment, the man urinates on the female.

The monthlong trial has centered on whether Kelly is the man who appears on the 27-minute videotape, and whether a female who also appears on it is underage.

The singer, 41, whose full name is Robert Sylvester Kelly, has pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of child pornography. Both he and the alleged victim, now 23, deny being on the tape and neither testified at trial.

Boliker told jurors that Kelly's defense attorneys would argue there is nothing to tie him to the video.

"What about his face? What about his body?" Boliker said. "What about his commands? What about his goddaughter? What about her face? What about her body? What about her voice?" 

But defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. told jurors that charges against Kelly came about because people were trying to extort money from the Grammy winner because the man on the tape "may favor him."

"That's what this is about -- money, money, money," Adam said.

He also suggested that prosecutors pressured people into testifying against Kelly.

The defense also argued in trial that in their version of the tape there is no mole on the back the man who appeared, proving the man is not Kelly, who has a mole on his back.

But prosecution video expert Grant Fredericks testified during trial that version of the video that the defense used in presenting its case was misleading because jurors saw it in a low-quality format. Fredericks took a defense expert to task for his choice of formats.

"The prosecution has to convince this jury that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that R. Kelly is the person in that tape, and the girl who's named in the indictment is in that tape," Miller said. "And to do that, they're going to have to convince these jurors to use their own eyesight, and not only that, but to base their deliberations on the legitimate expert that they called to the stand, to say that there's no question that's a legitimate tape; that there's no question that mole exists."

"The key to this case is the background of that tape," Miller said of the distinctive log cabin room in a house Kelly once owned on the North Side that is allegedly the room in which the tape was created. "The background room, the Jacuzzi room, where lighting pictures are the same, where tiles are the same, where towel racks are the same."

The defense need not prove that Kelly did not make the tape, but must convince the jury there is reasonable doubt of his identity if they are to win the case, Miller said.

"The defense has to convince them that mole does not exist. They have presented in evidence that the mole doesn't exist; they have presented family members and said it's not the girl in the case, and therefore (the defense claims) there is reasonable doubt," Miller continued. "It's not a question of, 'Did he do it or did he not do it?' It's a question of, 'Can they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?'"

Gaughan has told the jury they may review the video in their deliberations.

A Dramatic Trial Comes To An End

The trial has been a string of dramatic moments.

A star prosecution witness testified that she'd had a sexual liaison with Kelly and the alleged victim. Later, the defense called a mystery defense witness who was supposed to impeach her testimony and argue that she had tried to extort Kelly, but he never testified.

Chicago Sun-Times rock critic Jim DeRogatis also was called to testify, prompting a legal battle to prevent it, Gaughan threatened to arrest DeRogatis after he did not appear in court. DeRogatis received the sex tape anonymously in 2002, and turned it over to police.

Finally, DeRogatis cited the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and declined to testify. Attorneys had said he might be accused of child pornography for possessing and viewing the tape.

Prosecutors called 22 witnesses over seven days of trial. Kelly's lawyers called 12 witnesses over two days.

CBS 2's Jay Levine, Mike Parker and Dorothy Tucker and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

(© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Editor's Picks

• Real Or Fake?
• Celebs Who Lean To The Right
• Top 10 Smartest And Dumbest Dog Breeds
• World's Most Useless Facts