Re: Jussie Smollett has conviction overturned

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2024-11-22 10:08 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2024-11-21 11:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I see that Jussie Smollett has had his second conviction over his hate
crime hoax overturned:

I know. BTR1701 will say "I told you so."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-conviction-overturned-illinois-supreme-court

Of course this doesn't overturn his FIRST conviction.

There was no first conviction. There was no trial. It was pretrial
diversion, BTR1701 said I was wrong and that jeopardy attached. The
state supreme court agrees with him and not me.

So a pretrial diversion ISN'T a conviction? I thought it counted as a
conviction that just had a very mild sentence. So Smollett now has no
criminal record at all (assuming he hasn't committed other crimes before
or since the hoax)?

Conviction can occur only upon completion of trial. Smollett went
through various pre-trial stages -- arrest, charges, arraignment --
and then entered into diversion. After completion of diversion, the
prosector asks that charges be dismissed.

The judge has no role to play beyond accepting the prosecution's motion
to dismiss all charges. He must accept the motion.

This is not a plea bargain in which the defendant pleads guilty to all
undismissed charges and allocutes in open court.

I think pre-trial diversion includes expungement of the arrest record.

The appeal was about whether the special prosecutor was able to try him
on charges for the second arrest that weren't covered by the diversion
agreement but the state supreme court ruled that the diversion agreement
precluded any additional charges for the same crime.

Double jeopardy was not being argued here as there was no trial in the
first instance.

I see. I didn't realize things worked quite that way. It seems weird to
me in the Smollett must have implicitly acknowledged SOME guilt if he
was willing to do the community service; an innocent man would insist on
going to trial to prove his innocence.

Now that I think about it, pre-trial diversion takes place BEFORE
arraignment. The defendant DOES NOT enter a plea. The defendant DOES NOT
acknowledge guilt implicitly or otherwise.

So all the blame for the miscarriage of justice - the sweetheart deal -
goes to Kim Foxx.

Yes. She got re-elected anyway.

Reasonable people probably knew that the second set of
charges was a non-starter from the get-go but the public pressure was so
high that the government decided to file them anyway. Even if the
conviction was eventually overturned, the public pressure was eased and
that's all these politicians really want.

I thought the special prosecutor wasn't violating his civil rights but
I'm not an appellate court judge.