That's not on me, I just posted what I read. But I do agree that re-litigating a case like this is pure BS... The courts are basically trying the level best to undo the legal process. The "State Supreme Court" is a farce.
Pretty sure that the Fifth Amendment is in the Constitution. You realize that is the basis of the "technicality" in this case, right?
Tell us the whole story of this particular case as you see it, especially the part that pertains to the 5th Amendment.
And your opinion is wrong. It is quite sad that white WOMEN (who historically and presently have some legitimate grievances against the system) have now taken up the mantel for support of the poor, poor mistreated white man. Ridiculous!!! Taking "stand by your man" way too far. The notion of mistreated white man itself, while quite popular, is laughable, but when women do it it's almost pitiable.
It appears to be that the issue was that the prosecutor worked out a deal with him to end that case. He would do community service and forfeit his bond as a form of a fine. Then, people got mad at the deal and a special prosecutor charged and convicted him for the same acts. The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously determined that this violated his Fifth Amendment rights, specifically, against Double Jeopardy.
How would that solve an issue of double jeopardy? No. Do you know what double jeopardy is? No. He still would need to take his fine and the community service from the first deal.
Double Jeopardy is the technicality, as you are calling it. I already explained what happened. He was charged and the state disposed of the case with a fine and community service. Then, people got mad, so the politicians appointed a special prosecutor who put him on trial for the same acts. That is double jeopardy.
Are you freaking kidding me? The courts re-sentenced him a second time for the same crime? That is nuts... I thought the first trial was deemed a mistrial.
No, that's not what they ruled. The case was nolle prossed BEFORE jeopardy attached. While an element of 2X jeopardy entered into the discussion, this was a contracts case. Due Process prevented him from being prosecuted for the offense after he had already performed all of the terms required for the case to have been initially nolle prossed. Here's a link to the actual opinion.: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/dadcff96-2fa0-46b4-9d62-2c3aa687a0cd/People v. Smollett, 2024 IL 130431.pdf
JDMZ explained it better in post 8, it’s not exactly double jeopardy because it didn’t go to trial the first time, but he took a deal to avoid the trial, fulfilled the deal, then got charged again…. As he said, the state has to act in good faith in their agreements. Edit… see the post above mine, too…
No, jeopardy never attached. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn in a jury trial, when the first witness is sworn in a non jury trial or after the judge formally accept the plea agreement in a negotiated plea situation. There was no trial and the case was nolle prossed...there was no negotiated plea agreement accepted by the judge. Jeopardy has to have attached at some point in order for there to be double jeopardy.
And the TV clowns got that wrong... Double Jeopardy is far more than just a technicality as they called it.
I will never believe a TV News personality again on this sort of thing. DJ is more than a technicality. It sounds like they tried to re-sentence him... Dumbazzez.
I thought the Illinois Supreme court said there could not be a new trial because a new trial would be double jeopardy?
Fair enough on the legal portion. It does seem like they left the double jeopardy portion of the argument unanswered (as you mentioned, they discussed the argument both from other courts and the defense team). Seems to be a bit of a punt on that part of the argument. You are correct that their argument seems to rely more on the state not being able to go back on an agreement in which the potential defendant met his obligations in the agreement. Not a lawyer, but the due process claims here do seem to be at least somewhat based in Constitutional law though. Is that fair to say?
