It's a story that still grips Hollywood. The court ruled that a special prosecutor should not have intervened after initial charges were dropped. This decision reignites debate over the controversial case.
- Jussie Smollett catches a break
- Thanks to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling
- The role of special prosecutor is questioned
Illinois Supreme Court Ruling
The Illinois Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of actor Jussie Smollett, who faced charges for allegedly orchestrating a false hate crime against himself in Chicago in 2019.
The court's decision focused on the involvement of a special prosecutor, which it deemed inappropriate after the Cook County State’s Attorney's office initially dropped the charges. Smollett, known for his role on the TV drama 'Empire,' had been accused of staging the attack to gain attention after reportedly being dissatisfied with the studio's response to hate mail he received.
The state's highest court ruled 5-0 that the special prosecutor's involvement was unjustified, as the initial agreement with the Cook County State’s Attorney's office had already resolved the case.
Justice Elizabeth Rochford emphasized the importance of upholding agreements upon which individuals have relied. The ruling, however, did not address Smollett's continued claims of innocence.
In fact, he is active on social media again. Not exactly a sign of guilt.
Role of Special Prosecutor Questioned
Smollett's legal team argued that the case should have ended when the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped the original 16 counts of disorderly conduct.
However, after a grand jury reinstated the charges, a special prosecutor took over, leading to Smollett's 2021 conviction on five counts of disorderly conduct. Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in jail, of which he served six days before being released pending appeal, along with 30 months of probation and a restitution payment of approximately $130,000.
Emailed messages seeking comment were sent Thursday to Foxx’s office and to Smollett’s attorney, who have argued that Smollett has been victimized by a racist and politicized justice system.
“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,” Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote in the 5-0 decision. “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.”
Throughout the legal proceedings, Smollett maintained his innocence, asserting that he was the victim of a hate crime. During the trial, testimony revealed that Smollett paid $3,500 to two acquaintances from 'Empire' to carry out the attack, instructing them on what slurs to use. Despite the conviction, Smollett testified that “there was no hoax.”
Also interesting:
The case has sparked significant public interest and debate over the justice system, with Smollett's attorneys claiming he was victimized by a racist and politicized system.
