Ill. Supreme Court in Smollett case affirms that you can get away with just about anything in that sorry state.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s surprising, blockbuster ruling that reversed Jussie Smollett’s conviction for falsely reporting a hate crime attack on himself has the nation flummoxed.
It’s a fact that he staged the attack, that he was indicted for it, convicted by a jury—a judgment affirmed by a state appellate court—matters not in the high court’s vaunted opinion.
Judging by the news stories in many national publication, folks are struggling to understand how a panel of legal experts (i.e. judges) can give Smollett a pass.
The answer: That’s Illinois for you.
Undergirding the court’s decision is some legalese that I’ll try to explain (although I’m not sure I understand it either).
First thing to remember is that Illinois judges, including the supremes, are elected. In Illinois, that means that they are products (at least in part) of the Illinois Democratic Machine. Not that they would make their decisions on the basis off politics—oh, no.
Also remember that originally the radical billionaire George Soros funded the election of the prosecutor Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx whose office made a “deal” with Smollett. The “deal” paved the way for the dismissal of charges that flowed from his falsely reporting the “crime.” The “deal” consisted of Smollett doing some community service and giving up his $10,000 bond. That was a mere slap on the wrist considering the time, money and effort that the police put in trying to collaborate and then destroy Smollett’s playacting .
Remember too that her action was so blatantly without merit that public outrage led to the appointment of a special prosecutor who delivered the guilty verdict.
The high court dismissed the prosecution’s argument based on a legal principle called nolle prosequi. I’m not an attorney but here’s a definition:
The normal effect of nolle prosequi is to leave matters as if charges had never been filed. It's not an acquittal, which (through the principle of double jeopardy) prevents further proceedings against the defendant for the conduct in question. Rather, at least when it occurs before trial, nolle prosequi typically leaves the decision of whether to re-prosecute in the hands of the government. If the prosecution decides to bring charges again—for example, after it's gathered more evidence—it must file a new charging document. (People v. Daniels, 187 Ill. 2d 301 (1999), Kenyon v. Com., 37 Va. App. 668 (2002).)
However, dismissals are sometimes "with prejudice." A dismissal with prejudice means the prosecution can't ever refile charges; dismissal without prejudice means the prosecutor can refile the charges.
So, the case against Smollett wasn’t dismissed because he was deemed innocent, or a witness disappeared and the case just fell apart. It was dismissed because of the “deal” that basically let Smollett skate. The main point being that a prosecutor has the power to bring back the charges.
But, the high court decided that a deal is a deal. And that bringing charges against him later was a violation of his due process rights. So, the court ordered the conviction reversed.
This sounds like a lot of bunk to me. But that’s just me.
I congratulate the court for finding a reason to free Smollett that’s so obscure and complex that none of us bystanders to justice can figure it out and contest it.
But that’s Illinois for you.