This ain't making sense to me. So according to the following article, Hill himself admitted to financing that movie. I didn't post the whole article per forum rules. If you admit to financing a film, what are the actors in the film supposed to say when again.....you admitted to financing the film.
U.S. JURY CONVICTS COCAINE KINGPIN
While both defendants had court-appointed attorneys, they took large roles in defending themselves, delivering all or part of their closing arguments to jurors last week.
To make sure jurors realized they were in custody in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, each forsook street clothes and wore orange prison jumpsuits throughout the eight-week trial.
Hill, 32, born and raised on the South Side, took the witness stand in his own defense, admitting he sold cocaine out of his garage in the mid- to late 1980s.
He contended he quit the business in mid-1990--which if true would have put his drug-dealing outside the statute of limitations and the reach of prosecutors.
Hill also alleged he invested more than $700,000 in drug profits to finance a movie called "Reasons," which is believed to be loosely based on Hill's life story.
The other way to look at it is based on this article. If the feds are alleging money laundering, then Eiht testifying that he was paid by Hill could be an issue.
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategori...cle_8c279448-4e0d-562e-8d08-0b59da7b7e93.html
Hill's money-laundering allegedly included the following:
-- In 1993-95, he spent more than $500,000 on an Illinois music company he
set up that produced albums and managed talent.
--
In 1994-95, he invested more than $700,000 in drug profits in financing a
film called "Reasons" through nominee investors in New York, Texas, Chicago and
California.
But again, he admitted to financing the film. You admit to financing the film, then you admit to paying the people who worked on it.