R. Kelly
Goes down in flames in the appeal procedure …
But a judge thinks he pays too much for Valtrex
Published
R. Kelly lost his appeal in his conviction for sex trade across the board … But a judge believes that he was instructed to pay one of his victims for herpes medication of name fire.
In his calling at the US Court of Appeals, the fashionable R&B singer argued for the second circle in New York that there was not enough evidence that certain jurors should not have been in empaneled, and the lawyer was ineffective while he was potential jurors In question … among other things, among other things, and the lawyer was ineffective, while potential jurors … were questioned, among other things … among other things, and the documents state.
Tmz.com
After a complete review, the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the under court, including an order that Kelly pays a female victim for her herpes medication.
However, a judge was not completely used by the decision to pay Kelly for the expensive herpes medication of the victim.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan With Kelly's argument that the prosecutors had inflated the costs of the victim's herpes medication by asking for a refund, based on the high price of the name fire-Valtrex than on the less cost-effective generic version.
Kelly was affected by more than $ 270,000 to pay a lifelong range of Valtrex, which apparently costs a whopping $ 421.29 for a 30-day offer.
In comparison, the drug in generic Valacyclovir costs an average of $ 15.31 for a 30-day offer … which only leads to $ 9,829.09 over its lifespan.
The judge found that the subsequent court made a mistake because there was no “reasonable certainty” that the victim would buy Valtrex for the rest of her life, and noticed that it was possible that the woman was able to buy the cheaper generic version Dignity and the rest simply plug it as a wind case.
Kelly's lawyer Jennifer Bonjean replied to the court ruling and said TMZ … “Although we are disappointed that the second circle has confirmed Mr. Kelly's convictions, we believe that the UK's Supreme Court will be interested in checking this unprecedented statement The government an unlimited Rico statute on situations absurdly of the statute of the statute.
Bonjean continued … “The deviating opinion acknowledges that the government uses considerable financial incentives Although there is no guarantee, it would use the money for this purpose.