[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They also seal records so that they don't come back to haunt someone who was charged but cleared of those charges. When you do a 'security check' on people, police interactions show up, but not the details. This can have a long term effect, the opposite of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

https://www.lawnow.org/police-record-ch ... -disclose/

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So, you're going to believe this guy

over this guy

Assumes facts not in evidence.

And for the record, I don't believe anyone; and I had never heard of Smolette until Bart posted the fake news from the Daily Fail a couple weeks ago. And I still don't care about him.

I do however, care about 'trial by media', and it's lasting conviction.

$1:

I agree that trial by media is wrong but by the same token, so is subverting justice and lying.

So, the question becomes if Jussie Smollett was innocent like he claims why didn't he go to court and have his innocence proven especially since the States Attorney's office explicitly stated that the dropping of charges did not mean he was innocent?

Seems to me he was terrified that he'd be found guilty of the crimes he committed.

$1:

By the same standard; if there is not enough evidence to reasonable convict at trial, why not take the community service and $10k and call it even? Save the taxpayers the cost of losing at trial.

Trying someone without the posibility of conviction just to appease the media is vindictive.

The issue I have with that is that if Rahm Emanuel and Eddie Johnson are to be believed, the Grand Jury only got a very small part of the evidence before they made their decision to send him to trial. So, they're basically saying that that there was even more compelling evidence to send him to trial. None of which the media ever got to see so, they're the ones basing their accusations on a small part of the evidence not the States Attorney.

A fact which might explain why there were 16 charges for what some people are calling just a hoax and like I said before the State said that "because of the non violent nature of the crimes" they made the decision to let him go but then went on to say that they still believe he's guilty.

But now that Smollett immediately went out and attacked the Chicago police dept after his release and is attempting to sue them likely means we'll get to see "all" the evidence that the Judge said we couldn't. So, well likely get to make our own informed decision about Smolletts innocence or guilt.

[PluggyRug]

[BartSimpson]

This isn't over by a long shot.

The Illinois State Bar's official statement today is looking like they're going to move to disbar the DA and go after her for misconduct.

http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825

$1:

IPBA STATEMENT ON JUSSIE SMOLLETT CASE DISMISSAL

The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1,000 front line prosecutors across the State who work tirelessly towards the pursuit of justice. The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County State’s Attorney’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest ethical work prosecutors provide to the citizens of the State of Illinois on a daily basis.

The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.

When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15). Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor. Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law. This statement is not accurate. To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal. See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2). For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)). The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing. To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed. The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.

Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs. The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency. Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility. To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.

Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.

This irregular arrangement was an affront to prosecutors across the State, the Chicago Police Department, victims of hate crimes, and the people of the City of Chicago and Cook County. We strongly encourage our members and the public to review the National District Attorneys Associations statement on prosecutorial best practices in high profile cases.

Best Regards,

Lee Roupas
President,
Illinois Prosecutor’s Bar Association

[llama66]

Now, since he was only charged and not convicted, nor was he acquitted or convicted of the alleged crime, so he can be recharged and tried and double jeopardy will not apply.... correct?

[BartSimpson]

llama66 llama66:

Now, since he was only charged and not convicted, nor was he acquitted or convicted of the alleged crime, so he can be recharged and tried and double jeopardy will not apply.... correct?

This is correct.

It ain't over.

[Freakinoldguy]

llama66 llama66:

Now, since he was only charged and not convicted, nor was he acquitted or convicted of the alleged crime, so he can be recharged and tried and double jeopardy will not apply.... correct?

If I understand the law correctly only a Judge can dismiss charges and by doing so means they fall under the double jeopardy statutes. Dropped charges mean they were never pursued to the court stage so, if new evidence or circumstances arise they can be reinstated.

A fact which hopefully happens to one Mr. Smollett because, rather than keeping his mouth shut and going quietly into the night he's decided to self promote his sick ass by publicly denigrating and suing the entire Chicago Police Dept which is something that's likely going to come back and bight him in the ass.

But put the racist self promoter Jussie Smollett aside for a moment and think about the bigger issue. The issue isn't whether this loser perpetrated a hoax it's that the Chicago State Attorney's office is starting to look alot more like an episode of the Soprano's than a fair unbiased arbiter of justice.

[newz]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

8)

Wins thread!

[newz]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It's Chicago, doing what Chicago does.

Legalizing hoaxes now. Very "Progressive."

Technically “Hoaxes” have never been illegal

Making a False police report is a crime, albeit a very minor one.

Really?
http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=108100

[llama66]

$1:

Technically “Hoaxes” have never been illegal

Making a False police report is a crime, albeit a very minor one.

You're right, hoaxes are not illegal. But making statements that cause the Police to enter into a false investigation is illegal. Both in Canada and in the United States.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... n-140.html
This is a hybrid offence, so it can be minor; or the crown can opt for the Indictable route which is 5 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
Looks like that's a felony in the States, pretty serious.

Lets not down play what he did. He deserves to do time. His actions could have lead to some very serious consequences in the States and he deserves to be called onto the carpet for what he did. The DA deserves to be disbarred for her meddling in Justice.

Enough People actually are victims of hate crimes. This bozo really made it that much harder for actual victims to get actual justice.

As an actual victim of violent crime, this pisses me off to no end.

It shows how little he thinks of others.