Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jussie Smollett has conviction overturned
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:40:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vhqfmj$1951o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vho8lb$ntt3$1@dont-email.me> <vhp118$11jdm$3@dont-email.me>
 <vhp1lu$sqgs$3@dont-email.me> <vhq6pd$17d85$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:40:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d62ada9cf9851524736939f723d717c6";
	logging-data="1348664"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sfSRDg9WLmuzgLhuy5l+IvRdQ6GOmpYk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FWPhL6k/jNkhZJYeUdFtn+wT7fc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vhq6pd$17d85$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 241122-2, 11/22/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-CA
Bytes: 3839

On 2024-11-22 10:08 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-11-21 11:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> I see that Jussie Smollett has had his second conviction over his hate
>>>> crime hoax overturned:
> 
>>> I know. BTR1701 will say "I told you so."
> 
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-conviction-overturned-illinois-supreme-court
> 
>>>> Of course this doesn't overturn his FIRST conviction.
> 
>>> There was no first conviction. There was no trial. It was pretrial
>>> diversion, BTR1701 said I was wrong and that jeopardy attached. The
>>> state supreme court agrees with him and not me.
> 
>> So a pretrial diversion ISN'T a conviction? I thought it counted as a
>> conviction that just had a very mild sentence. So Smollett now has no
>> criminal record at all (assuming he hasn't committed other crimes before
>> or since the hoax)?
> 
> Conviction can occur only upon completion of trial. Smollett went
> through various pre-trial stages -- arrest, charges, arraignment --
> and then entered into diversion. After completion of diversion, the
> prosector asks that charges be dismissed.
> 
> The judge has no role to play beyond accepting the prosecution's motion
> to dismiss all charges. He must accept the motion.
> 
> This is not a plea bargain in which the defendant pleads guilty to all
> undismissed charges and allocutes in open court.
> 
> I think pre-trial diversion includes expungement of the arrest record.
> 
> The appeal was about whether the special prosecutor was able to try him
> on charges for the second arrest that weren't covered by the diversion
> agreement but the state supreme court ruled that the diversion agreement
> precluded any additional charges for the same crime.
> 
> Double jeopardy was not being argued here as there was no trial in the
> first instance.

I see. I didn't realize things worked quite that way. It seems weird to 
me in the Smollett must have implicitly acknowledged SOME guilt if he 
was willing to do the community service; an innocent man would insist on 
going to trial to prove his innocence.

So all the blame for the miscarriage of justice - the sweetheart deal - 
goes to Kim Foxx. Reasonable people probably knew that the second set of 
charges was a non-starter from the get-go but the public pressure was so 
high that the government decided to file them anyway. Even if the 
conviction was eventually overturned, the public pressure was eased and 
that's all these politicians really want.

-- 
Rhino