Connect with us

Illinois

Jussie Smollett lawyers ask Illinois Supreme Court to overturn verdict that he falsely claimed hate crime

Published

on

Jussie Smollett lawyers ask Illinois Supreme Court to overturn verdict that he falsely claimed hate crime


Lawyers for Jussie Smollett asked the Illinois Supreme Court Tuesday to overturn a jury’s 2021 guilty verdict that found the actor lied to Chicago police when he falsely claimed he was the victim of a hate crime.

During the actor’s trial, special prosecutors accused Smollett of staging the attack for publicity because he was unhappy with his salary for his role on the hit television show “Empire” and was attempting to launch a music career.

The jury found the actor guilty of five counts of disorderly conduct, and he was sentenced to 30 months of probation, with the first 150 days to be served at Cook County Jail.

At the heart of Smollett’s argument is whether the Cook County state’s attorney’s office had earlier entered into a binding agreement not to prosecute Smollett because he voluntarily agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bond and perform community service.

Advertisement

Defense attorney Nenye Uche told the justices Tuesday that because Smollett’s attorneys and the government reached the deal together, it should be considered a contractual non-prosecution agreement — regardless of whether that term had been used in court.

Short of reversing the jury’s verdict, Uche asked the justices to alternatively send the case back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if a binding agreement had been reached.

Special prosecutors countered that the original agreement was honored when Smollett’s first case was dropped by prosecutors through a motion for “nolle prosequi” — a legal term when the state has decided to no longer prosecute.

But dropping the case doesn’t prevent prosecutors from being able to refile charges, Special Prosecutor Sean Weiber told the justices.

Justice Elizabeth Rochford questioned that argument, asking why Smollett would agree to voluntarily forfeit his bond if he thought he could be recharged.

Advertisement

“If the words nolle pros are used, regardless of the other circumstances … then a defendant should be cautioned that the reinstatement is always a possibility?” Rochford asked.

Weiber argued the answer was yes, citing “40 years of legal precedent” and that Smollett’s experienced team of lawyers knew the difference.

In Smollett’s case, he argued, there was nothing that would have dismissed the case “with prejudice” — meaning a judge says the charges can’t be refiled — because Smollett neither admitted guilt nor was deprived of his liberty.

Rochford later returned the question to Uche, asking about the argument that the “terms used were nolle pros, he voluntarily forfeited the money and that when he walked out, he should have been well aware that those charges could be re-brought?”

“Mr. Smollett isn’t an attorney,” Uche responded. “He shouldn’t be punished for any misapprehension or drafting, secretarial errors that were done on this particular agreement. The prosecutor should not hide behind technicalities.”

Advertisement

Last year, a divided appellate court panel affirmed the actor’s conviction in a 2-1 decision after considering similar arguments. A dissent from Justice Freddrenna Lyle sided with Smollett that there was evidence the state had entered into an agreement.

“The majority contends that there is no evidence in the State’s agreement that the parties intended for the agreement to be tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice. I disagree,” Lyle wrote.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March.

In his closing argument, Weiber asked the justices to finally bring an end to the case, noting it has been 2,048 days since the “underlying incident.”

“He was caught,” Weiber said. “He was convicted.”

Advertisement

In January 2019, Smollett called police to report he was attacked by two Trump supporters who beat him, doused him with a bleach-like substance and placed a thin rope noose around his neck as he walked home from a Subway sandwich shop.

His story quickly fell apart as police launched an expansive investigation that consumed thousands of hours of manpower, officials said.

Smollett was charged by State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who later announced she would recuse herself after it was revealed she had helped facilitate conversations between Smollett’s family and the Chicago Police Department.

Months later, the state’s attorney’s office decided to drop the charges — a decision that led to significant public outcry.

It led a judge to appoint Dan Webb as a special prosecutor to review the decision to drop charges against Smollett. Webb determined the state’s attorney office had committed “substantial abuses of discretion and operational failures,” and he ultimately brought new charges in an indictment against Smollett.

Advertisement

Smollett served less than a week of that sentence before he was released while appealing his case.





Source link

Illinois

Illinois in the trenches again to protect fair housing

Published

on

Illinois in the trenches again to protect fair housing


Is housing discrimination illegal even if the action wasn’t intended?

According to the Fair Housing Act, yes.

Should the federal government go after errant housing providers in those scenarios? Well, that depends on the president.

In 2013, Barack Obama codified what’s known as the “disparate impact” rule, in other words, recognizing discriminatory practices not motivated by discriminatory intent. The Biden administration reinstated the rule. Now President Donald Trump seeks to roll it back by preventing agencies from investigating housing discrimination complaints.

Advertisement

Still, the disparate impact remains legal — federally and locally. And Illinois ensured extra protections by codifying disparate impact into state law. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has reduced the workforce in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is antagonistic toward fair housing.

Let’s go back to the legal origins. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. spent time in the city for the Chicago Freedom Movement, which protested housing segregation and slums. Part of that campaign sent Black people to real estate offices, and agents told them they had no listings. Soon after, the campaign sent white people to the same offices, and agents gave them listings. After King’s assassination in 1968, Congress quickly passed the Fair Housing Act. The civil rights law prohibited discrimination against people trying to rent or buy a home. Race, sex and national origin are among the protected classes.

Today that King campaign is called “testing,” and fair housing organizations continue the practice. They send two people — one pair Black and one pair white — with otherwise similar profiles to visit the same housing provider. The volunteers are trained to see how they are treated and report back if discrimination occurs. State and local fair housing centers do a variety of education and fight discrimination — to the chagrin of the Trump administration, which has also sought to gut their funding. To advance fair housing, HUD is a primary source of financing. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, along with other states, filed a lawsuit to challenge the attacks. Some contracts have been reinstated, but not every center received back money.

“A lot of our worst fears have kind of already happened. We know that it’s going to take at least a decade to rebuild the federal infrastructure to what it was before with the number of federal workers,” said Emily Coffey of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “What we had a couple of years ago was never enough. We are still one of the most segregated cities in the country. What worries me the most is that we won’t be able to sustain what we have, and rebuilding that is so much more challenging than just weathering a storm.”

To counter the political climate, fair housing groups have formed the Illinois Housing Equity Collective, which seeks $5 million from the state for fair housing enforcement. So far philanthropy has contributed to the collective.

Advertisement

Michael Chavarria leads HOPE Fair Housing Center, which serves DuPage and Kane counties and parts of Northern Illinois. The mixed messaging from the federal government has prevented growth and also caused rearranging their budget while waiting on reimbursements. He doesn’t want to tap into reserves to cover a bill when the federal government promised that money.

“Just last year we held over 40 events that were targeted at training individuals, be it housing seekers, housing providers, local government. We reached about 3,500 people through our online educational campaigns. We reached almost 750,000 people across Illinois. So we really aim to prevent discrimination by making sure everyone knows their rights and responsibilities. We do not want to have to sue people,” Chavarria said.

Illinois finds itself once again on the front lines of protecting residents — see reproductive, immigration or First Amendment rights. And now must add fair housing, which Trump pushed against just last week by refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill.

The reason? He first wants Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act — legislation designed to create more inequity and burn democracy to the ground.

Natalie Y. Moore is a senior lecturer at Northwestern University.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

New Illinois bill aims to overhaul public defense system | The Chicago Report

Published

on

New Illinois bill aims to overhaul public defense system | The Chicago Report


A major overhaul to the Illinois justice system could be officially underway.
 House Bill 3363 lays the foundation for a brand new agency, the state public defender office. 
 The goal is to bring more consistent legal representation for Illinois residents who can’t afford an attorney.
 Joining us now to discuss the rolled-out timeline is the bill’s sponsor, State representative Dave Vella, who actually started his legal career as a public defender, before heading to Springfield.



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

Illinois Democrats face backlash after blaming Trump in Chicago cross-burning case | Fox News Video

Published

on

Illinois Democrats face backlash after blaming Trump in Chicago cross-burning case | Fox News Video


Illinois Democratic leaders Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are slammed for weaponizing a Chicago cross burning incident by blaming former President Trump. Despite the suspect, Murlin Lue, admitting his motive was to protest Trump, not racism, Pritzker and Johnson doubled down. Critics, including Illinois GOP State Rep. Chris Miller, accuse them of playing politics and fostering division rather than seeking truth.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending