Akon will most likely face a jury in December on charges stemming from an incident in which he allegedly threw a 15-year-old fan off the stage during a concert in June 2007. If found guilty of all charges, he could spend up to a year and 15 days in jail, Read the latest news in Akon's fan-tossing case here.

The verdict is in, and the trial is over. It's been slightly uncomfortable watching R. Kelly go back and forth to the courthouse in recent weeks knowing that his future was hanging in the balance. Each time I saw him, it felt like even he was uncertain of what his future would be — he was intensely focused, quiet and kept to himself. Given what was at stake, I suppose any of us in his shoes would feel the same way.

All that changed when the verdict was announced this afternoon. He was overcome with emotion inside the courtroom and shed some tears, but he seemed relieved once he was outside. He waved and smiled for what seemed like the first time in weeks. After all those days in front of the courthouse, I forgot what it looked like to see him like that — relaxed. From there, he was off to mark the moment with friends and family.

I felt compelled to wish him well, so we rolled out to find him. He's not ready to talk yet on the record, but this photo says a lot anyway — he's feeling relaxed, relieved and not guilty.

What do you think about the R. Kelly verdict? Vote in our poll, or sound off in the comments section below.

Vote in our poll and leave your comments below. If you'd like to send a video response, upload it at yourhere.mtv.com.

Are the odds against R. Kelly? You bet. We asked 10 pros — that is, jockeys, horse owners, professional handicappers and gamblers at Arlington Park — to give us their assessment of how likely it is that the R&B singer will be convicted in his child-pornography trial. Here's how they broke it down, in horseracing terms:

Brandon Meier, 19-year-old male jockey: 3:5 (meaning 62.5 percent) "He's the favorite."

Steve "The Stat Man" Miller, professional handicapper for the "Green Sheet": 1:3 (75 percent)
"Kelly might be singing 'I Believe I Can Walk,' but he should try a different tune. I think he did it, despite him saying he didn't."

Dan "Moon" Schulz, professional handicapper for "Barn to Wire": 1:5 (83 percent)
"R. Kelly's done. He's already been convicted in the press, and I hate the press. Even if he's innocent, he's going down. Time in jail is another question."

Inez Karlsson, 25-year-old female jockey: 8:5 (38.46 percent)
"Because he's guilty. I've been following the trial on TV, and it looks like there's some pretty good proof, and there's usually some truth to that. But it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't go to jail, because America is a country where everything is about money and celebrity."

Frank Calabrese, horse owner: 1:100 (99.9 percent)
"The woman who said she had a threesome with him, she recognized his genitals on the tape. And she sounded credible to me. I just don't think he was set up. I think he's guilty."

Jim "Little Elvis" Luikaart, professional gambler: 1:5 (83 percent)
"Because he's such an upstanding young citizen. And because the ex-boyfriend [Damon Pryor] didn't come in and say [Lisa Van Allen] was lying."

Sig Bogdziewicz, professional gambler: 2:5 (71.42 percent)
"Because he said he didn't do it, and who can you believe? Three people said it wasn't her."

Creighton Schoenfeldt, professional gambler: 2:1 (33.33 percent)
"I give the same odds for R. Kelly actually going to prison."

Ted McClelland, author of "Horseplayers: Life at the Track": 1:4 (80 percent)
"It's less a question of guilty or not guilty, and more of a question of Stateville [Correctional Center] or Menard [Correctional Center]."

Scott "The Professor" McMannis, former economics professor at Northern Illinois University, instructor at the Handicapping and Business Center and author of "Chicago Trainer Patterns": 2:1 (33.33 percent)
"It's even money. More and more has been coming out, so that even if you're unsure on your bet, you still score."

Since calculating these odds and their meanings is a task better left to the professionals, McMannis did a composite for us — he said the combined assessment is 1:5 (83 percent). Not too good for Kelly, but he should take comfort in the fact that his odds are better than the ones these Chicagoans gave Barack Obama to snag the presidency — Calabrese put that one at 1000 to 1. Ouch.

(by Shawn Adler)

The Idiot Defense. The Gay Panic Defense. For goodness sakes, the TWINKIE Defense. Throughout the history of jurisprudence there have been defense strategies so new, so outside the box, that they have passed from the musky halls of justice and into common parlance.

Questioning 24-year-old prosecution witness Simha Jamison on behalf of R. Kelly, defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. may have unwittingly added another to the ever growing list: The "Little Man" Defense.

"I ain't gonna get in the middle of R. Kelly's trial," Shawn Wayans recently told MTV News, a heavy tone of incredulity in his voice. "[But] I'm curious."

Cross-examining the witness on her positive identification of Kelly in a video which allegedly shows him having sex with an underage girl, Adam suggested that Kelly's head could have been superimposed on someone else's body, a la the 2006 Wayans Brothers comedy "Little Man," where Marlon Wayans was digitally manipulated to look like a 1-year-old child.

"They put the head of Marlon Wayans on a midget and it looked real, didn't it?" Adam asked.

"Pretty interesting," Sean, who co-starred in the film, chuckled.

The difficulty of the endeavor makes the question all the more ludicrous, Wayans implied, detailing to MTV News the extraordinary effort it takes to accomplish that sort of digital trickery.

"It's not easy. It's very complicated and it takes several effects guys to help you plot that out," he said, referring to the need for identical camera moves throughout several different shots for composite matches. "You'd need tons of greenscreen. It'd be very expensive — the production would [be prohibitive]."

Still, Wayans couldn't help but stand in awe of the audacity of the question — but just don't call Little Man as a witness.

"Can't knock a guy for trying! He's very creative," Wayans laughed. "I just hope Little Man don't get subpoenaed into court — he wouldn't be a good alibi."

Happy Fleet Week! While NY has been overtaken by young men and women fresh off their boats, an Air Force nurse is suing the Air Force over firing her for being a lesbian.

Major Margaret Witt spent 18 years as a flight nurse before she was suspended in 2004 (two years short of full retirement benefits). Despite a citation for her work from President Bush, someone called the Air Force and told them they were shocked, shocked! to learn Major Margaret was having a romantic relationship with a civilian woman. The military claimed this violated their "don't ask, don't tell" policy. (Although it doesn't appear as though the individuals in the actual relationship "asked" or "told," now does it?)

"Don't ask, don't tell" has been around since 1993, when President Bill Clinton introduced it as a compromise between an outright ban of gays and lesbians in the military and letting patriotic Americans serve their country regardless of who they happen to love. This left the door (um closet?) open for plenty of complications and more than a little bitterness.

Anyway, back to Major Margaret. She first sued the Air Force back in 2006, but a judge threw her case out. Then yesterday, a federal appeals court overturned that decision and possibly cleared the way for other former servicemen and women to sue the military. Now perhaps all of those Arabic translators who got booted for being gay can get their jobs back and help our soldiers and Marines understand what everyone's saying to them in Iraq.

Oh, and on a related note: Ellen DeGeneres and John McCain did a complicated little dance around the topic of gay marriage on her show...

Recently I walked you through the painfully selected jurors in the R. Kelly trial, and today I introduced you to the key players. But even for someone working from the courtroom nearly every day, it can tough to keep track of who's who. So we R. Kelly beat reporters have sometimes had to play mind games to stay on top of our job.

When they started jury selection, it became harder and harder to tell prospective jurors apart, since at times we didn't even know their numbers. So I started a little game with the other reporters, where we would refer to them by a celebrity code name -- Mr. Miyagi, Ice-T, Jonathan Davis from Korn, etc. None of these were exact matches, so it doesn't give away "identifying characteristics" -- that would be illegal, we know, as the jurors' identities and likenesses are not to be revealed. But to put a face on things, even the wrong face, we came up what R. Kelly's jury look like if they were all varying degrees of famous...

Juror #69 - Luke Wilson

Juror #6 - Darlene Love

Juror #9 - Charles Dutton

Juror #21 - a young Ally Sheedy

Juror #22 - Luis Guzman (he's had prior experience being a juror, and Guzman has prior experience on "Runaway Jury," even though this juror is not Latin)

Juror #23 - Robert Downey, Jr. (after a bad night)

Juror #32 - Shar Jackson

Juror #40 - Bernie Mac

Juror #48 - a young Matthew Broderick

Juror #44 - Joe Montegna

Juror #61 - Alan Arkin

Juror #66 - Ed Norton

And then we got really carried away and started extending it to the key players in the trial...and even ourselves. You know, in case a movie were ever made of all this.

Who should play the judge? And (more importantly) who should play us? For the Sun-Times -- and to complete our Brat Pack selection -- we chose Anthony Michell Hall. For the Tribune, it's Megan Mullally. We pretty much agreed upon Gene Hackman for defense attorney Ed Genson, and Meg Ryan and Mickey Rourke for the prosecution (since Bob Heilingoetter has a linebacker-type build), but the jury's still out on who should play the judge. Jack Nicholson is getting a lot of votes...

R. Kelly isn't the only one having to defend himself here: Some of the reporters covering his trial keep getting into trouble, too.

Just this week, one reporter from the Chicago Tribune had his credentials temporarily taken away because he broke a court decorum order about not conducting interviews in the courtroom. Another reporter, from local station WJMK, was reprimanded because he talked on the radio about bringing donuts for the deputies; the court thought he was mocking them and the donuts were confiscated when he brought them to the courtroom. And this morning, prior to a hearing regarding some sealed records, the judge chewed out the reporters present for -- get this -- allegedly leaving their gum on the court benches. "Please don't make me do DNA on this," Judge Vincent Gaughan said, holding up a baggy of the offending gum.

But that was kids' stuff compared to what happened after the hearing, once Kelly and most of the reporters had cleared out. Upon receiving a call from juror #23, the judge asked for Assistant State's Attorney Shauna Boliker and Tribune reporter Stacy St. Clair to return. He informed them that juror #23 said that since reporting for jury duty, he had received three calls from the Tribune.

Judge Gaughan was concerned. Was the Tribune violating a court order not to contact jurors? St. Clair said she hadn't made the calls and didn't know who did, but she took the number the calls were made from and checked, as did a bailiff.

It turns out the phone number was for the paper's market research and subscriptions office -- "which seems like an innocent thing," Boliker said. Basically, they were telemarketers.

But how were they to get the newspaper to stop calling the juror? He was already on a federal no-call list, but that hadn't prevented the telemarketers from finding him. The judge at first asked St. Clair to get the paper to stop -- after all, she works there -- but without the juror's phone number (which the court can't disclose), she'd have no way to tell them just who to stop calling. Boliker then offered to intervene. "If you want me to call this service, or would that alert them to something?" she asked. Would it be better to take all the jurors off the lists, or would that give the newspaper precisely the information they were trying to protect?

Judge Gaughan suggested that the situation be handled by a lawyer who had been present earlier fighting for access to sealed documents, because he'd be obliged to keep the number confidential. St. Clair suggested her newspaper's in-house counsel, and that settled it (after a few jokes about her going to jail if she violated the order).

And you thought you had a tough time getting telemarketers off your back...

A 16-year-old girl from Florida took her case to the Internet after prosecutors in Florida dropped rape charges against her 23-year-old alleged attacker. The intense video post is titled "A 16 year old rape victim needs help," and at this point has been viewed by nearly 300,000 people.

Of course, commenters on YouTube are well-known for being muuuuch more sympathetic than law enforcement officials and prosecutors. Comments have ranged from "She looks like she was asking for it" to "She is just a pissed-off hussie that wants the man prosecuted now that he dumped her or whatever he did to her." Cool, guys. Thanks!

CNN picked up the story and spoke to the teenager about the whole thing. Sadly, this alleged victim's story isn't that uncommon: one in four young women in America have been sexually assaulted, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). What is unusual here is the YouTube plea.

The girl has posted the alleged rapist's criminal case number, so we know this isn't a LonelyGirl15 situation. But what do you think about calling someone out as a rapist online? Is this an effective way to get help -- or is she opening herself up to more harm than good? And should the Internet serve as a court of public opinion when the actual judicial system has failed you?

The YouTube clip in question, after the jump.

Last month, Stone Temple Pilots frontman Scott Weiland was sentenced to serve 192 hours (8 days) behind bars, following his arrest in November on a misdemeanor driving under the influence. Yesterday morning, just before 9am, Weiland reported to the Van Nuys, California lockup to begin serving his time.

By 7pm, he was a free man.

Weiland served just 10 of those 192 hours. Of those 10 hours, according to his prison records, he spent a total of 14 minutes in a prison cell. Weiland, who has struggled with substance abuse off-and-on for years [Ed: Understatement!], had until May 28th to serve out his sentence; Stone Temple Pilots’ reunion tour kicks off May 17th in Columbus, Ohio.

On November 21st, Weiland, who recently split with Velvet Revolver on very sour terms, was involved in a non-injury collision on an LA highway. The cops who were investigating the scene reported that he “exhibited signs of impairment,” and he was arrested. This was his second DUI arrest.

In addition to jail time, Weiland was also ordered to complete an 18-month alcohol program and pay almost $2,000 in fines. He has also been put on a four-year summary probation period.

We’ll just have to see how his recent troubles are going to affect the STP dates –- and his solo double-album with producer Steve Albini.