Saturday, March 30, 2019

Cook County State's Attorney Says Jussie Smollett Was Not Exonerated


This week Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx caused widespread outrage after dropping all 16 charges against actor Jussie Smollett after he was caught staging a hate crime in Chicago [click here if you missed that].

Kim Foxx explains her reasons for dropping the case and confirms the actor was NOT exonerated...

In The Chicago Tribune Kim Foxx writes,
Let’s talk about the Jussie Smollett case. Let’s talk about his alleged actions, the decision about how best to prosecute and resolve the case, and the implications for our Chicagoland community.
There was considerable evidence, uncovered in large part due to the investigative work of the Chicago Police Department, suggesting that portions of Smollett’s claims may have been untrue and that he had direct contact with his so-called attackers. Claims by Smollett or others that the outcome of this case has “exonerated” him or that he has been found innocent are simply wrong. He has not been exonerated; he has not been found innocent.
So, why isn’t Smollett in prison or at least on trial? There are two different answers to this, both equally important.
First, the law. There were specific aspects of the evidence and testimony presented to the office that would have made securing a conviction against Smollett uncertain. In determining whether or not to pursue charges, prosecutors are required to balance the severity of the crime against the likelihood of securing a conviction. For a variety of reasons, including public statements made about the evidence in this case, my office believed the likelihood of securing a conviction was not certain.
In the interest of full transparency, I would prefer these records be made public. However, in this case, Illinois law allows defendants in certain circumstances to request that public records remain sealed. Smollett chose to pursue that avenue, and so my office is barred from releasing those records without his approval...
Read the full statement here.