By Ny MaGee
Lee Bailey’s EurWeb
Reprinted – by Texas Metro News
https://eurweb.com/
The Illinois Supreme Court has overturned Jussie Smollett’s conviction for allegedly falsely reporting a hate crime in Chicago in 2019, citing issues with the prosecution.
The court ruled that Smollett should not have faced charges after reaching a non-prosecution agreement with the Cook County State Attorney’s Office, NBC News reports. The actor/singer was sentenced in 2022 to 150 days in jail and 30 months of probation after being convicted on five counts of felony disorderly conduct. He claimed to be the victim of a homophobic hate crime, but the investigation revealed he staged the attack with two Nigerian brothers.
Smollett maintained his innocence and denied orchestrating the hoax. After the sentence was handed down two years ago, he exploded in the courtroom and suggested something might happen to him in county jail and repeatedly made clear that he was “not suicidal.”
During the sentencing hearing, Judge James Linn chastised and shamed Smollett, called him a liar, and accused him of committing purgery during his testimony. The judge also noted that Smollett’s ego and narcissism led to him plotting the hate crime against himself.
“Let me tell you Mr. Smollett, I know that there is nothing that I will do here today that can come close to the damage you’ve already done to your own life,” Linn said. “You’ve turned your life upside down by your misconduct and shenanigans, you’ve destroyed your life as you knew it, and there’s nothing that any sentencing judge could do to you that can compare to the damage you’ve already caused yourself.”
“Your honor, I respect you and I respect the jury, but I did not do this,” Smollett told the judge before turning to the packed courtroom and saying, “And I am not suicidal. And if anything happens to me when I go in there, I did not do it to myself. And you must all know that.”
Watch the moment in the YouTube clip below.
In the latest ruling, the judges acknowledged that many believed the original outcome of the case was 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,” the ruling said.
