Chicago Sun-Times music writer Jim DeRogatis did not show up at a Cook County court this morning to testify in the R. Kelly trial, despite a judge
ordering his appearance and questioning on what he did with the sex tape at the heart of the trial between the time he acquired it and the time he handed it over to authorities. Sources have told the
Chicago Tribune—which has been
all over this aspect of the story today—that DeRogatis never received the subpoena issued to him by Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan, although the judge has insisted that he told prosecutors and defense attorneys to let DeRo and his paper-appointed lawyer, Damon Dunn, know that they had a date this morning. DeRogatis has been threatened with arrest, although his lawyers say that he's in the clear because there's an appeal sort of pending. I say "sort of" because while it was
filed, Dunn and his team of lawyers apparently filed it to the wrong Chicago court. (Insert joke about times being so bad for newspapers, they have to get their legal assistance from El ads here.)
More »
Idolator
On Sunday, Jim DeRogatis penned an overview of the Jonas Brothers' rise to stardom that not only called the Disney-peddled pop trio "goobers," it claimed that the lyrics on "BB Good" "could just as well be dialog from a date rape as the prelude to an innocent teen make-out session" and said that the Nickelodeon boy band the Naked Brothers "beat [the JoBros] any day." You probably know what happened next: a 43-comment freakout and many, many e-mails, some of which DeRogatis was helpful enough to repost today.
More »
Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled that Chicago Sun-Times music writer Jim DeRogatis will not have to testify in the R. Kelly trial because of the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from self-incrimination, after DeRogatis showed up in court this morning to be questioned by the judge. Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn said that an overly zealous prosecutor could potentially take any testimony in which DeRogatis admits to watching or possessing the tape and use it as the grounds for a child pornography case, and that DeRogatis is still protected under the First Amendment, despite the court's 
