Illinois’ Supreme Court has overturned former “Empire” star Jussie Smollett’s convictions for falsely reporting a hate crime in 2019. On Nov. 21, the state’s court found that the actor was wrongfully prosecuted for previously dropped charges in a negotiation agreement.
In January 2019, Smollett reported he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two masked men. What began as a hunt for the perpetrators quickly evolved into an investigation of Smollett himself, leading to his arrest on charges of having staged the assault. Prosecutors discovered that the actor paid two men, whom he had previously worked with on the show “Empire,” to orchestrate the attack, telling them what racist and homophobic slurs to shout.
That March, Smollett was charged with 16 counts of disorderly conduct. However, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office ultimately dropped the charges, citing that he forfeited his bond and contributed to community efforts, which sparked nationwide controversy.
In 2020, a special prosecutor re-filed charges against Smollett, which led to a highly publicized trial. The jury ultimately convicted the star on five counts of disorderly conduct in 2021 and was sentenced to 150 days in jail. Following the jury’s decision, Smollett’s legal team requested that Illinois’ appellate court dismiss the convictions.
“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,” the appeal read, as previously reported by theGrio.
After the state’s appellate court upheld the jury’s convictions, Smolett’s attorneys submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, asking the system to hear the case. Siding with Smollett, the state’s highest court reversed the conviction, explaining that “a second prosecution under these circumstances is a due process violation.”
“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,” the court said in its opinion, per People magazine. “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.”
