New York (AP) — R. Kelly’s new lawyer has asked the judge to postpone August 9. Sex Trafficking Trial in New York CityHe claims he didn’t have enough time to prepare because he had been forced into prison quarantine since his transfer from Chicago.
In a letter to Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court on Monday, lawyer Devlow Canick said Kelly’s 14-day quarantine ending Tuesday speeds up after Canick was hired on June 21. He wrote that it exacerbated what he said was a “hard effort” for.
Canick in that letter Kelly’s New lawyer Not being able to meet him in person due to quarantine and proceeding with the R & B star trial on time would deprive him of effective and meaningful expression.
Kelly, whose name is Robert Sylvester Kelly, was quarantined when she arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn from Chicago on June 22nd. Similar charges.. Tuesday marks the 14th day since Kelly moved to Brooklyn.
“Robert is anxious to spend his day in court, but he has not sacrificed his right to the sixth amendment,” Canick wrote, saying the request was not a delayed tactic.
Federal prosecutors did not respond to Canick’s request as of Monday night and declined to comment. Donnelly has not yet decided to submit.
Federal lockups have quarantined newly imprisoned prisoners since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic as part of a protocol to prevent the spread of the disease.
Kelly, 54, has been accused Lead the company It consisted of his manager, bodyguard, and other employees who helped him recruit women and girls for sex. Federal prosecutors say the group selected victims at concerts and other venues and arranged for them to travel to meet Kelly. No Grammy-winning singer has denied abuse.
Mr Canick said that once Kelly’s quarantine was completed and he was allowed to meet with a lawyer, he would be forced into a jockey in one of the limited number of meeting rooms in Brooklyn Prison. He wrote that if the room was not available, they would have to meet Kelly at the table with other lawyers and prisoners.
“The nature of the evidence here does not help to open up a frank discussion in such an environment,” writes Canick.