Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Jussie Smollett has conviction overturned
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:52:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vhqned$1aha8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vho8lb$ntt3$1@dont-email.me> <vhp1lu$sqgs$3@dont-email.me> <vhq6pd$17d85$1@dont-email.me> <vhqfmj$1951o$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:52:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e027f71d13c2ec9345350f529fc3ddad";
	logging-data="1393992"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JpcUtJtrTssbtkHi6CTQxoQhtzDaH0cs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iXG+V0O1C7nAmiQtEbAnSIvnQeo=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3985

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>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.

Now that I think about it, pre-trial diversion takes place BEFORE
arraignment. The defendant DOES NOT enter a plea. The defendant DOES NOT
acknowledge guilt implicitly or otherwise.

>So all the blame for the miscarriage of justice - the sweetheart deal - 
>goes to Kim Foxx.

Yes. She got re-elected anyway.

>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.

I thought the special prosecutor wasn't violating his civil rights but
I'm not an appellate court judge.