Jussie Smollett has had his conviction for lying to the police with a bizarre anti-Trump hoax overturned in a sensational ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court.
The court found that the former ‘Empire’ actor had his rights violated by a special prosecutor’s decision to retry him after initial charges against him were dropped with an agreement that he would not be re-charged.
Smollett was convicted in December 2021 for lying to police about an alleged episode in Chicago two years before, where he claimed two men beat him, yelled homophobic slurs and placed a noose around his neck while wearing MAGA hats.
He was sentenced to 150 days in jail and 30 months’ probation after it was proven that he made the episode up, and he was also slapped with a hefty fine of $130,160.
Smollett appealed the ruling and has not yet served a day of that sentence behind bars, even after his conviction was previously affirmed by a lower court in 2023 before the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.
The actor’s hoax and subsequent arrest sparked a media firestorm years ago, as it was found that he had actually paid two Nigerian brothers – Abel and Ola Osundairo – to stage the incident.
Jussie Smollett, seen in court in March 2019, has had his conviction for lying to the police with a bizarre anti-Trump hoax overturned in a sensational ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court
The actor’s hoax and subsequent arrest sparked a media firestorm years ago, as it was bizarrely found that he had actually paid two Nigerian brothers, Abel and Ola Osundairo (pictured) to stage the incident
When Smollett first came forward with his story, the actor was met with widespread support, and the Chicago PD vowed to swiftly find his attackers. Smollett even showed police the noose that he claimed he was almost lynched with.
Although Smollett claimed he was attacked by two white Trump supporters, detectives reviewed surveillance footage and zeroed in on the Osundairo brothers as suspects.
Read More
Jussie Smollett completes a five month rehab program for substance abuse
When presented with a grainy surveillance picture of the brothers near the scene, Smollett said they were ‘absolutely’ the men who attacked him, not realizing they had already been arrested.
One of his attorneys, Tina Glandian, claimed that Smollett may have misidentified the brothers – who he had also just been on the phone with moments before – because they could have been ‘in disguise’ in white makeup.
She went on to point to a 2016 YouTube video of Abel Osundairo, the brother in question, where he is wearing white make-up to perform a Joker monologue for Halloween as proof of her theory.
By that time, stories had leaked that detectives believed Smollett had concocted the story, seemingly in an attempt boost his public profile.
Smollett went on Good Morning America to tearfully insist he was the victim, but by February 2019, a month after the incident, he was arrested and charged with filing a false police report, and his character from Empire was halted.
Before his first arrest, Smollett broke down in tears as he insisted he wasn’t lying about the hoax during an appearance with Good Morning America
Jussie Smollett’s lawyer Tina Glandian suggested that the reason he told police his Nigerian attackers were white was because they ‘might have been wearing white face.’ Her evidence of the theory was 2016 video of Abel Osundairo (pictured) dressed up as the Joker for Halloween
Smollett even showed police the noose that he claimed he was almost lynched with during the investigation (pictured)
An evidence picture of the ‘noose’ Smollett claimed he was attacked with
Police released this image of the brothers walking near the scene on the night of the attack which Smollett said, without realizing they had been arrested, was ‘absolutely’ an image of the men who attacked him
However, despite a grand jury indicting him for repeatedly lying to cops, the charges against Smollett were then sensationally dropped a month later in March, sparking outrage from the public.
President Trump led the backlash as he decried the charges being dropped as an ’embarrassment to the nation’, while Chicago Police Chief Eddie Johnson, who is Black, said at the time: ‘Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.’
The Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, amounted it to a ‘whitewash of justice’ that proved Smollett was treated gently by the system because he is a celebrity and a prominent figure in the city.
After he was fined $140,000 for wasting police resources, a special prosecutor was named to investigate why the charges against Smollett were dropped.
It was this decision that has now led to Smollett’s ultimate conviction to be overturned this week, as it was found his rights were violated because Smollett had agreed with prosecutors that he would not be re-charged at the time after the case against him was dropped.
In February 2020 Smollett was indicted again on felony lying to police, and following a contentious trial where he maintained his innocence, Smollett was convicted at the conclusion of his trial in 2021.
Smollett again sparked backlash during his conviction hearing, as he triumphantly raised his fist to appear defiant, despite being caught in a lie.
Smollett again sparked backlash during his conviction hearing, as he triumphantly raised his fist to appear defiant, despite being caught in a blatant lie
Although he initially received a groundswell of support after coming forward with his story, Smollett suffered a dramatic fall from grace when detectives said he made it up (seen in his mugshot after his first arrest in 2019)
The conviction was overturned by members of the Illinois Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Theis and Justice Cunningham (not circled) recusing themselves from the decision
When the Illinois Supreme Court handed down the ruling to overturn that conviction on Thursday, Chief Justice Theis and Justice Cunningham recused themselves from the decision.
The court’s opinion pointed to the agreement Smollett had with Illinois prosecutors after his charges were dropped.
‘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 opinion read.
‘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.’