Jussie Smollett's trial

[Mik]

Can we say he lacks self awareness?

[George K]

@Mik you're a racist homophobe.

[Copper]

He as not yet received a Grammy for this work?

Huh?

The Recording Academy is a racist homophobe.

[George K]

@Copper he needs to slap someone.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Jussie Smollett's trial:

@Copper he needs to slap someone.

He has.

[jon-nyc]

[George K]

"It was cold as balls."

What the hell does that even mean?

But, bless them for doing God's work. The "noogie" sealed the deal.

[Mik]

Where's 60 Minutes when you need them?

[George K]

Smollett appeals:

Attorneys for Jussie Smollett filed arguments Wednesday explaining why they’re appealing the former “Empire” actor’s 2021 hate crime hoax conviction and want a new trial.

The court document, filed Wednesday in the Illinois First Judicial District appellate court, raises multiple arguments, including that Smollett’s prosecution violated his due process rights, in part by not enforcing what his attorneys describe as a binding non-prosecution agreement.

Smollett also argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy, takes issue with the appointment of a special prosecutor and argues his sentence was excessive, among other things.

Smollett’s attorneys are requesting in the appeal that he get a new trial with a different judge.

One of their arguments involves double jeopardy; they say he was charged twice for the same crimes.

In their appeal, his attorneys wrote, “If Mr. Smollett’s convictions are allowed to stand, this case will set a dangerous precedent by giving prosecutors a second bite at the apple any time there is dissatisfaction with another prosecutor’s exercise of discretion,” they wrote.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in Jussie Smollett's trial:

But, bless them for doing God's work. The "noogie" sealed the deal.

I don't remember seeing that, but that was funny

[taiwan_girl]

https://www.stltoday.com/news/nation-world/jussie-smollett-actor-homophobic-maga-attack-illinois/article_1970d96f-f68b-50a9-afd9-f5e2e62a2834.html

An appeals court upheld the disorderly conduct convictions Friday of actor Jussie Smollett, who was accused of staging a racist, homophobic attack against himself in 2019 and lying about it to Chicago police.

Smollett, who appeared in the TV show “Empire,” challenged the role of a special prosecutor, jury selection, evidence and many other aspects of the case. But all were turned aside in a 2-1 opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court.

He now will have to finish a 150-day stint in jail that was part of his sentence. Smollett spent just six days in jail while his appeal was pending.

[George K]

[copper]

Lock him up.

[/copper]

That said, and this is Chicago politics, the current Cook County prosecutor, Kim Foxx, has a storied history of being...unfair in her sentencing suggestions and decisions to prosecute. I think she recommended dropping charges against Smollett.

[jon-nyc]

I posted about this about a week ago. I was surprised how little attention it got.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K Did someone post something after you did?

@jon-nyc Just tease you. :couple_with_heart:

[George K]

Free Jussie!

The Illinois Supreme Court has thrown out former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett’s conviction for lying about a 2019 hate crime.

Smollett was found guilty in 2021 for faking a racist and homophobic attack and lying to the police. His lawyers said this violated his Fifth Amendment rights because, in 2019, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx had already agreed to drop the charges if Smollett paid $10,000 and did community service. A special prosecutor later charged him again, leading to his trial and conviction.

In its decision, filed on Thursday, the court stated they are resolving a "question about the State’s responsibility to honor the agreements it makes with defendants."

The court stated it did not find that the state could bring a second prosecution against Smollett after the initial charges were dismissed as part of an agreement and the actor performed the terms of the agreement, noting that Illinois case law establishes that it is "fundamentally unfair to allow the prosecution to renege on a deal with a defendant when the defendant has relied on the agreement to his detriment."

"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," it said.

[Mik]

Did he pay 10K and do the community service or is it just the court that has to honor the agreement?

[jon-nyc]

Makes sense. Who's going to accept a deal if the next prosecutor could renege?

[Mik]

Yes, it does.

[jon-nyc]

Doesn't stop me from being pissed about the original deal he was cut.

[jon-nyc]

“I am innocent in the eyes of god”