Jussie Smollett’s conviction for staging a 2019 hate crime hoax has been overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court, ending a years-long legal battle.
Story Summary:
- The Illinois Supreme Court overturned Jussie Smollett’s disorderly conduct conviction, citing due process violations.
- The court ruled that prosecuting Smollett after a prior agreement with prosecutors was unjust and constituted double jeopardy.
- Smollett was initially accused of staging a hoax attack in 2019 and had faced significant legal and public scrutiny.
Jussie Smollett exonerated in double jeopardy case
The former Empire actor, who faced widespread backlash and legal consequences for allegedly fabricating the attack, was exonerated on the basis of double jeopardy—a legal principle that prevents someone from being tried twice for the same crime.
The ruling, delivered Thursday, concluded that Smollett’s conviction violated his due process rights.
“A second prosecution under these circumstances is a due process violation,” the court declared, adding that the state must honour agreements made with defendants if the defendants have fulfilled their part of the bargain.
Smollett’s troubles began in January 2019, when he claimed two men assaulted him in downtown Chicago, yelling racist and homophobic slurs while invoking political slogans.
Authorities later accused Smollett of orchestrating the attack as a hoax.
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx dropped the initial charges against Smollett, reaching a deal that required him to pay a fine and complete community service.
However, public criticism of this resolution led to a special prosecutor reopening the case.
The special prosecutor’s investigation resulted in Smollett being tried and convicted of five counts of disorderly conduct in 2021.
He was sentenced to 150 days in jail, 30 months of probation, and ordered to pay over $130,000 in restitution. Smollett served just six days of his jail sentence before being released pending appeal.
The Illinois Supreme Court sided with Smollett’s defence, which argued that the second prosecution violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
“It was unfair to cut a deal and then prosecute him again,” stated legal analyst Karen Conti, echoing Smollett’s legal team’s position.
The court’s ruling emphasised that agreements between defendants and prosecutors are binding and must be honoured to uphold public trust in the legal system.
“We are aware this case has generated significant public interest… but 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 stated.
