Judge: DeRogatis will not have to testify, after all.

| | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Sun-Times reporter and music critic Jim DeRogatis will not have to testify in R. Kelly's child porn trial after all, Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled this morning.

Kelly's legal team wanted DeRogatis - who broke the story about the sex tape at the center of the case in 2002, and passed a copy to police to investigate - to take the stand for the defense. They said his testimony was "crucial" to Kelly's defense, claiming it would undermine the testimony of prosecution witness Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards. They have also claimed DeRogatis's reporting has shown an "extreme bias" against Kelly.

Judge Gaughan ruled Friday that DeRogatis had no protection against testifying under either the First Amendment or the Illinois reporter's privilege, reaffirming that decision Tuesday and saying that DeRogatis must testify. The reporter's privilege only protects journalists from revealing their sources, he said.

But this morning Gaughan said that DeRogatis was protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. "He does not have to testify," the judge said.

Outside the presence of the jury this morning, DeRogatis, wearing a dark suit and tie, appeared before Gaughan to answer questions in court from Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn and Kelly's attorney, Marc Martin.

After identifying himself and spelling his name, he gave the same answer to every question he was asked about where the tape came from, what he did with it and what he had written about Kelly.

To each question, he answered, "I respectfully decline to answer the question on the advice of counsel on the grounds that to do so would contravene the reporter's privilege, the special witness doctrine and my rights under the Illinois Constitution, and the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."

Kelly's attorneys have repeatedly suggested during the trial that DeRogatis may have committed the crime of child pornography, alleging that he may have made a copy of the tape before passing it to police. An anonymous tipster left the tape in DeRogatis's mailbox in 2002.

Dunn argued that by answering any questions about the case in court, DeRogatis could lead himself open to state and federal prosecution. "While we may all feel, back at my law firm, that Mr. DeRogatis is an innocent man, as a lawyer you cannot take that risk," Dunn said. A "zealous prosecutor" could decide to charge DeRogatis, simply for seeing and possessing the tape, Dunn said.

Dunn also argued that DeRogatis was protected by the First Amendment and the Illinois reporter's privilege, despite the judge's earlier ruling. The judge's earlier ruling is under appeal, and the protections still applied while the appeal was being heard, he said.

Reporters sometimes had "hard choices" to make when pursuing stories, Dunn said, arguing that their job was to "pursue facts wherever they lead them."

He added, "Pursuing the facts in a child pornography case requires reporters to do a fine balancing act," noting that "if Mr. DeRogatis had not come forward with the tape...this prosecution would not have happened."

But urging Gaughan to force DeRogatis to testify, Martin argued that the statute of limitations protected DeRogatis from prosecution. Even if it didn't, DeRogatis should be offered immunity, he said. Arguing that the Illinois reporter's privilege and the First Amendment did not apply to DeRogatis in this case, he added, "Being a reporter does not give you a license to commit crimes."

Siding with Dunn, Gaughan said that he had no power to grant DeRogatis federal immunity. He said DeRogatis would not have to testify, also refusing the defense's request that DeRogatis be forced to assert his Fifth Amendment privileges in front of the jury.

DeRogatis will have to turn over his notes from an interview with Sparkle by 4 p.m. today, the judge said. Gaughan said he would review the notes in private to see if they reveal any of DeRogatis's sources.

"He's free to go," Gaughan said, concluding the hearing.

The defense has now begun presenting its case, calling its first witness.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Judge: DeRogatis will not have to testify, after all..

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/9609

8 Comments

I've read Derogatis' reviews of R Kelly's concerts and music and his bias against R Kelly has been obvious for some time. However, I don't see the connection between him submitting what he thought was evidence of child pornography or molestation being a defense for R Kelly. Are R Kelly's lawyers trying to attack the source to discredit the evidence???

I totally agree with the first post. Derogatis is biased against Kelly. If I understand the whole picture, what Jim is afraid of is the fact that he probably made a copy of the tape and thats illegal. Beyond that though, why not testify. Why not come forward and on record in open court about all that you know and understand about the case, the tape etc. If Jim truly wants to see justice why hide behind the 5th...oh thats right, the perv probably has a copy of the tape.

I totally agree with the first post. Derogatis is biased against Kelly. If I understand the whole picture, what Jim is afraid of is the fact that he probably made a copy of the tape and thats illegal. Beyond that though, why not testify. Why not come forward and on record in open court about all that you know and understand about the case, the tape etc. If Jim truly wants to see justice why hide behind the 5th...oh thats right, the perv probably has a copy of the tape.

I bet Jim is nervous as hell.

Regardless of the evidence.

Its evident that Jim did something that he wasnt suppose to do.

And just like how R Kelly will answer to God. So will Jim in all due time.

So i hope Jim doesnt think he has gotten away with anything.

Na, Jim's cool. Mr. Kelly on the other hand well I've got something for him....

DeRogatis has rights too. Regardless if you like it or not that is too bad. DeRogatis is also NOT on trial here...R. Kelly is, and asserting his 5th amendment rights in front of the jury would only create prejudice. (Oh my)

Kelly is the one on the video tape and that is the reality. The defense is scared because their client is going to prison, and Mr. Kelly's career/image is at stake.

It is clearly a shame that Mr. Kelly has a thing for placing his genitalia inside of a minor, and with that being said he needs treatment.

Let him burn! He earned it...

Why do people keep saying it was illegal for Jim to make a copy of the tape? If I got it, I sure as heck would also make a copy of something sent to me too before turning it over to anyone. Evidence gets "lost" in cases all the time....hello OJ trial?

R Kelly (apparently) had sex with children....I don't understand how people can have the gall to defend him and then blame Jim D for turning in the evidence.

AND ALL THIS BEING SAID, R KELLY IS ON TRIAL HERE, NOT JIM. R KELLY IS ON TAPE HAVING SEX WITH A MINOR, NOT JIM. JIM HAS RIGHTS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, JUST LIKE MR. KELLY. UNFORTUNATELY, MR. KELLY DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN HE RAPED. HOW DARE ANYONE MAKE THIS ABOUT JIM, THIS IS CLEARLY ABOUT THE PIED PEDOPHILE PLACING HIS PIPER WHERE IT DOESNT BELONG. BTW, DOES ANYONE KNOW IF CASTRATION IS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

R. Kelly on trial


The story of the allegations against R. Kelly started here in the Sun-Times. Almost six years later, it's now finally reached a trial.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kim Janssen published on June 4, 2008 11:36 AM.

Can Kansas City duo shed light on alleged threesome tape? was the previous entry in this blog.

Three witnesses say their relative is not the girl on tape is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Pages