Free Jussie Smollett! IL SC sets free

Juicy Smouellet is back!

 

You are the only one calling it a technicality… who is saying that?

He paid a $10,000 fine and did community service to settle the first case….as far as I can tell, he had no significant criminal history and this was a non violent, victimless crime… what do you think the punishment should have been?

 

I mean... Yes, when white cops abuse "black or other racial persons" they absolutely should "get found guilty".

What's wrong with that?

 

Edit to add that @GatorJMDZ beat me to this, but I will reiterate:
----------
Actually it was not untrue at all. He may have misunderstood that it was a garage pull rope, but what do you see here:

 

Here is the court's actual ruling.:

"
CONCLUSION
¶ 68 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. 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. As the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania recently stated when enforcing a prosecutorial promise not
to prosecute:
“It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of
crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse
society’s interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are
vindicated. Society’s interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due
to constitutionally aggrieved persons.” Cosby, 252 A.2d at 1147.
That court further noted the consequences of failing to enforce prosecutorial
promises when a defendant has relied on them to his detriment:
“A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished
principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of,
the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to
maintain.” Id.
¶ 69 We reverse the judgment of the appellate court, reverse the judgment of the
circuit court, and remand the cause with directions for the circuit court to enter a
judgment of dismissal.

There is no mention of 2X jeopardy in the holding, there couldn't be as jeopardy NEVER attached the first time. The court is using contract law language in its holding "Bound by agreements" and "detrimental reliance" to find a due process violation.

 

It is in essence the same type of process and protection though right? Otherwise the original agreements (not unlike actual double jeopardy) would really be worthless.

The overriding point here is, our system has to protect from being "re-punished" for something already legally deemed closed.

This is concrete with nothing political (sigh) about it.

 

I see where this some overlap of the concepts. I make the distinction here because I could not make a valid 2X jeopardy argument about this in court or in a motion. I might make a passing reference to it such as "somewhat similar to a 2x jeopardy claim" type argument, but I would be arguing contract law concepts as that is the appropriate argument and double jeopardy is not. (Me being technical.)

You are absolutely correct, there is nothing "political" or "a technicality" about this decision. It is based on well founded law and is the correct result.

 

That’s funny, because white men/women are the original race hoaxsters. I recall a white woman claiming a black man had kidnapped her 2 children, and had the entire country on a frantic search for him, and it turned out she murdered the children herself. She didn’t get the death penalty.

 

Truly horrible woman. She killed her two children because her BF suggested they were in the way of them getting together permanently.

I'm fine with her rotting in a Georgia prison the rest of her life.

 

The poster I quoted claimed a white person would get the death penalty for doing something like this. This woman didn’t, is my main point.