Smollett's not guilty..., anymore.

[Maxmars]

Jussie Smollett conviction overturned by Illinois Supreme Court

I must be a bad person.

From what I understood of the case, Mr. Smollett appeared quite guilty of the general notion of "orchestrating a hate crime hoax."

"Today we resolve a question about the State’s responsibility to honor the agreements it makes with defendants," the court wrote in documents obtained by Fox News Digital. "Specifically, we address whether a dismissal of a case by nolle prosequi allows the State to bring a second prosecution when the dismissal was entered as part of an agreement with the defendant and the defendant has performed his part of the bargain. We hold that a second prosecution under these circumstances is a due process violation, and we therefore reverse defendant’s conviction."

I am particularly intrigued by the phrase "the dismissal was entered as part of an agreement with the defendant and the defendant has performed his part of the bargain." 

What exactly was his part of the "bargain?"  It not being specified gives me pause.  And now they provide him with "double jeopardy" protection?  Exactly how does this deal mimic justice?  I wonder what the Supreme Court of Illinois saw that made them "reverse" the conviction?  Will a jury ever get to nullify this?  Does anyone really care?  

If he served his time, he served.  I get it.  But this seems very different.

 

 

[FlyersFan]

This dropping of the guilty verdict is disgusting.  
Completely disgusting.

[Sirius]

I couldn't make it sound more sinister if I tried. wth

[UltraBudgie]

If he served his time, he served.  I get it.  But this seems very different.

He was sentenced to 150 days in jail and 30 months' probation after it was proven that he made the episode up, and he was also slapped with a hefty fine of $130,160.

Smollett appealed the ruling and has not yet served a day of that sentence behind bars, even after his conviction was previously affirmed by a lower court in 2023 before the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.

So there's that. Old new I guess?

The special prosecutor who investigated Jussie Smollett's bizarre anti-Trump hoax slammed today's surprise ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court that overturned his conviction on a technicality.

U.S. Attorney Dan Webb told DailyMail.com in a statement that the ruling 'has nothing to do with Mr. Smollett's innocence', and the 'legal reasoning upends long-standing Illinois precedent.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ction.html

His name has become a mocking word though. Dave Chappelle made sure. That's a fate worse than jail for those Hollywood image-types.

[Maxmars]

Lacking more input from the court, I can't really understand this reversal.

I can't imagine a meaningful reason to reverse the conviction.

This just implies "wrongful accusation."

I would blame the prosecution, if I cared enough; I would blame the Judiciary, if my opinion mattered at all.

I just needed to express that odd feeling you get when "closure" is -erased- by decree.

There is another world where a conviction is not a 'virtue signal,' isn't there?

[KKLoco]

It’s Illinois. They LOVE criminals there!!

Barry says HI!

[UltraBudgie]

Opinion here: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows....130431.pdf

The argument seems to be that there was originally an agreement to not prosecute, with some representation that was a final resolution, and therefore it was unjust and wrong for the State to renege on it only because so many people thought it was a bad agreement.

CONCLUSION

¶ 68 We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently stated when enforcing a prosecutorial promise not to prosecute:

“It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse
society’s interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society’s interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due
to constitutionally aggrieved persons.” Cosby, 252 A.2d at 1147.

That court further noted the consequences of failing to enforce prosecutorial promises when a defendant has relied on them to his detriment:

“A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of,
the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.” Id.

¶ 69 We reverse the judgment of the appellate court, reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the cause with directions for the circuit court to enter a
judgment of dismissal.

There's lots more detail and a recap of the events of the case presented in the opinion.

So it looks like he got away with it, in the sense of this specific legal action, anyway.

[Maxmars]

OK... I guess I blame the prosecution...

He's the victim here now...

The States case was obviously not valid.