The Illinois supreme court overturned the conviction of former Empire star Jussie Smollett on Thursday, saying that prosecutors had unlawfully refiled 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 for lying about a 2019 attack in Chicago by two men who yelled homophobic slurs and put a noose around his neck. The two men later testified Smollett hired them to conduct the attack.
Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in jail as part of a 30-month probation sentence and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and more than $125,000 in restitution. He never served the sentence while his appeal moved through the system.
A grand jury originally returned a 16-count indictment against Smollett in March of 2019. Weeks later, prosecutors dropped the charges, noting Smollett had performed community service and forfeited his $10,000 bond.
After widespread 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 eventually led to six new felony charges being filed against Smollett.
The US constitution says someone cannot be twice tried for the same crime and the central question in the case was whether prosecutors could bring charges against Smollett after entering into an agreement with him to dismiss the charges. In its Thursday opinion, the Illinois supreme court said prosecutors could not do that.
“It defies credulity to believe that defendant would agree to forfeit $10,000 with the understanding that [prosecutors] could simply reindict him the following day,’” Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote for a unanimous court.
“We thus disagree with the state’s position that the dismissal of the first case by nolle prosequi means that the state was allowed to bring a second prosecution against defendant. Because the initial charges were dismissed as part of an agreement with defendant and defendant 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 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.”
