The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the conviction of former Empire star Jussie Smollett, saying prosecutors unlawfully filed charges against him after entering into an agreement to drop them.
Smollett was convicted of five counts of disorderly conduct in December 2021 after he was charged with lying about a 2019 attack in Chicago by two men who shouted homophobic slurs and wrapped a noose around his neck. The two men later testified that Smollett hired them to carry out the attack.
Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in jail as part of 30 months of probation and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and more than $125,000 in restitution. He never served the sentence while his appeal went through the system.
A grand jury originally returned a 16-count indictment against Smollett in March 2019. Weeks later, prosecutors dropped the charges, noting that Smollett had performed community service and forfeited his $10,000 bond.
After much criticism of the dismissal – including from then-President Donald Trump and then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel – the judge overseeing the case appointed a special prosecutor. That ultimately led to six new charges against Smollett.
Under the U.S. Constitution, a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime and the central question in the case was whether prosecutors could bring charges against Smollett after reaching an agreement with him to drop the charges. In its opinion Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court said prosecutors could not do that.
“It defies credulity to believe that the defendant would agree to forfeit $10,000, with the understanding that [prosecutors] I could simply re-impeach him the next day,” Judge Elizabeth Rochford wrote for a unanimous court.
“We therefore disagree with the state’s position that the dismissal of the first case by nolle prosequi means that the state was allowed to institute a second prosecution against the suspect. Because the initial charge was dismissed as part of an agreement with the suspect and the suspect performed his part of the agreement, the second prosecution was barred.
Rochford continued: “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 felt it was unfair. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any criminal case would be for this court to find that the state is not obliged to honor agreements on which people have harmfully relied.”
