Jussie Smollett's trial
-
The trial started yesterday, finally.
Actor Jussie Smollett’s criminal trial on charges from his allegedly staging a hate crime against himself is set to begin Monday after three years of delays and an investigation into the district attorney’s handling of the case.
Mr. Smollett, in late January 2019, claimed two men assaulted him while yelling racist, antigay and pro- Donald Trump slogans. He also alleged they hit him and tied a noose around his neck. Investigators soon alleged that he had fabricated the event.
He is being tried for six counts of disorderly conduct for making false reports to police.
The trial has been delayed due to events including having the charges dropped and refiled and an investigation into how Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx handled the investigation. The Covid-19 pandemic added to the delays. A court official said the trial will begin with jury selection and could be completed within days.
-
You won't find a left-leaning indoctrinated person who hasn't said out loud something equally stupid, silly, giggle worthy, conspiratorial, you name it. The only reason there is no shame to this level of idiocy is that it is endemic to the human race (right-leaning people genetically have less of it) and all their friends are exactly that stupid too.
-
What a dummy. I'd imagine this will be a pretty quick conviction, not sure what the sentence would be.
Could Smollett end up in jail?
Yes. The charge for filing a false police report is a felony in Illinois. Technically, it’s considered a Class 4 felony, the least serious of all possible felony charges, but it still carries a sentence ranging from one to three years in prison and fines up to $25,000.
If found guilty in a criminal trial, the actor could also be forced to pay restitution for the cost of the investigation, which, given the high-profile nature of the case, could be substantial.
Depending on what happens next, prosecutors could even add an obstruction-of-justice charge, which basically suggests that Smollett “knowingly” resisted or obstructed the work of an investigator (this charge also carries jail time).
-
In fairness to the VP, she did later post a statement to the effect of how hurtful and damaging it was of Smollet to fake the attack and admitted that she fell for it.
The Brad
-
In fairness to the VP, she did later post a statement to the effect of how hurtful and damaging it was of Smollet to fake the attack and admitted that she fell for it.
@lufins-dad I was not aware of that.
Thanks for the update.
-
In fairness to the VP, she did later post a statement to the effect of how hurtful and damaging it was of Smollet to fake the attack and admitted that she fell for it.
-
Jussie Smollett’s attorneys asked for a mistrial Thursday after the judge called their evidence irrelevant in front of the jury and “physically lunged” at one of the actor’s lawyers.
The odd fracas came in the midst of the defense’s cross-examination of Olabinjo Osundairo, who claims he was paid to help Smollett stage the hate crime, as attorney Tamara Walker grilled him about his alleged homophobia and past derogatory remarks toward suspected gay men.
Osundairo, 30, had just acknowledged he used the word “fruity ass” to refer to a man he suspected was gay and Walker asked if Smollett, who is openly gay, knew he’d said such things in the past.
Judge James Linn called the line of questioning “collateral” in front of the jury, indicating it didn’t have any relevance to the crime Smollett’s on trial for because it was from a past event, prompting Walker to ask for a sidebar.
While the attorneys were conferring with Linn, Walker claimed he “physically lunged” at her when she presented the motion for a mistrial, a claim the justice vigorously denied and was not witnessed by The Post.
“When you said the word mistrial on these grounds frankly I was stunned you’d even consider a mistrial based on this,” Linn said.
Attorney Heather Widell said they had the legal grounds to ask the questions and also accused the judge of visibly “snarling” in front of the jury anytime he sustained an objection from the prosecution and wanted to make sure his non-verbal cues were on the record.
“I’ve noticed snarls multiple times,” Widell said.
The judge took the discussion into his chambers and when he emerged about 10 minutes later and brought the jury back out, he told them to ignore comments he made to the attorneys
-
