Image 01 Image 03

Jussie Smollett Pleads Not Guilty to Six Felony Charges of Disorderly Conduct

Jussie Smollett Pleads Not Guilty to Six Felony Charges of Disorderly Conduct

The new charges allege Smollett “made four separate false reports to Chicago police” after a supposed hate crime against him happened in January 2019.

Former Empire actor Jussie Smollett pleaded not guilty to six felony charges of disorderly conduct in Chicago, IL.

The court alleges Smollett staged a hate crime on himself in January 2019.

From The Chicago Tribune:

The new indictment earlier this month alleged the actor best known for his now-ended role in the “Empire” TV show made four separate false reports to Chicago police in the aftermath of the Jan. 29, 2019, incident near Smollett’s residence in Chicago’s tony Streeterville neighborhood.

Smollett’s lawyers had requested a delay in the arraignment, saying they were filing paperwork with the state’s high court and a motion in Linn’s courtroom to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds.

Linn did not delay the proceedings and instead released Smollett on his own recognizance. Linn said he expects the actor to appear for court dates during which substantive arguments will be made; it is not yet clear whether that will be the case for the next hearing March 18.

Smollett’s lawyers filed motions with the Illinois Supreme Court on Monday seeking a stay in the criminal case in Chicago, a dismissal of the indictment, and asking that a prior court order establishing lawyer Dan Webb as special prosecutor be vacated. The order “vested the special prosecutor with overly broad duties that have now resulted in a second prosecution of Mr. Smollett, on identical charges that were previously nolle prossed by the duly-elected State’s Attorney,” the motion states.

The new charges come from special prosecutor Dan Webb after Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx’s office dropped the original 16 charges against Smollett last summer:

Cook County prosecutors dropped the first case against the actor with little explanation in a highly controversial move that has cast a long shadow over the upcoming primary race for state’s attorney.

After a judge found that Smollett’s first prosecution was invalid, Webb was appointed to determine whether the actor should again face charges. On Feb. 11, his special grand jury indicted Smollett on new counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly lying to police.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Poor Jussie. I hear Amazon is hiring at their warehouses.

Wouldn’t expect him to plead any other way. Now of course the fun begins.. I predict the lawyers for the defense start out by making outrageous claims of discrimination and abuse while maintaining their client’s innocence, while totally ignoring the evidence, and hoping we will too.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to vinnymeyer. | February 24, 2020 at 7:26 pm

    Just imagine.

    You mean things like…..

    “Subway wouldn’t deliver a foot-long to my condo because they discriminate!”

    “I always ask for wheat bread and racist Subway gives me White bread!”


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | February 24, 2020 at 7:28 pm

Hey! Maybe this lady can serve on his jury.

Nah, she’s too sane!

Lesbian YouTuber: I’m Quitting the Left. They’re Cruel and They’re Insane. — Ace of Spades

It’s a bureaucratic whitewash. Nobody took the initial story seriously except for official political correctness. The charge ought to be filing a false police report and forgotten.

Katy L. Stamper | February 24, 2020 at 8:11 pm

I don’t practice criminal law. Any Illinois criminal lawyers here with knowledge on this?

Also, actually surprised the brothers not indicted. Again, don’t practice criminal law, but when Smollet reported a crime, they knew it wasn’t. I’m thinking conspiracy, aiding and abetting. Something.

    Katy L. Stamper in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | February 24, 2020 at 8:11 pm

    Knowledge on the double jeopardy, I mean.

    Fat fingered the thumbs down. Didn’t mean to downvote. As I remember the brothers cooperated with law enforcement even to the degree of returning early from a trip to Nigeria to clear things up with the law. A very smart move on their part because Jussie would have thrown them under the bus in a heartbeat. Or tried to. They probably also saw the video where they were purchasing items used in the incident and realized they were identified. I’m not sure what they could be indicted for; they didn’t lie and they cooperated. It’s not illegal to run around downtown late at night (-15degreeF) and play silly games with an actor who could have told them anything but his true intentions.
    As far as double jeopardy I remember the case of hitman Harry Aleman who was exonerated of murder in a fixed trial presided over by a corrupt judge. Thirteen years later when the truth about the judge came out (he suicided) Aleman was found to never been in jeopardy and was retried again and convicted.
    In Jussies case I would have to opine that he was never in any legal jeopardy being that the prosecutor dropped the charges before the trial even started so the Aleman precedent should apply.

    In regards to Kim Foxx her mistake was to not come out and tell the true reason for dropping the charges; both Mayor Emmanuel and Police Super Eddie Johnson made extremely biased and highly publicized incendiary comments about Jussies actions. They absolutely poisoned the jury pool and if Jussie had any kind of competent attorney the would have won a change of venue. Probably 100 miles away to Rockford like during the Richard Speck case. It would have been a major expense for what was basically a misdemeanor so she kept quiet about this issue to protect her fellow dems but is now catching hell.

      Katy L. Stamper in reply to JimWoo. | February 24, 2020 at 9:29 pm

      Hi Jim,
      Thanks for not downvoting me on purpose!

      About the brothers: Well, I hear you… You know more about their conduct after Smollet’s report. But I think before I decide they’re in the clear, I’d like to hear from them what Smollet told them he was up to. If he told them he was going to stage a fake crime and make a fake report to law enforcement, then I would assume that would be criminal conduct.

      Thanks again!

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | February 24, 2020 at 9:39 pm

        Gay, Black Chicago Democrat Jussie Smollett asking the brothers to wear MAGA Hats should have been a BIG TIP OFF that something wasn’t kosher!

          Your point is valid but the fact that the brothers did the right thing by being truthful and cooperative goes a long was to establishing their honesty and credibility. Both brothers had prior business with Jussie and who knows what he told them. As aspiring actors themselves they could have been told Jussie wrote a screenplay and needed their help to rehearse it. Who knows? Absent any other evidence I think it would be very hard for Jussie (liar) to prove the truthful brothers were involved in a conspiracy.
          My opinion being that they attended today’s proceedings is that they are pissed and ready to testify against Jussie.

          in fact Jussie *can’t* claim the brothers were in on it without confessing that he was the ringleader, so there’s no legal evidence of any kind that they were part of a “conspiracy” – they say they weren’t, Jussie says they weren’t.

          The only crime here is filing a false police report, and that’s all Jussie.

        You are welcome. Thanks for reading. One correction tho Speck trial was moved to Peoria not Rockford.

        It would if Smollett told them that was what he had planned, or if they became aware that he had filed a false police report when it became headline news.

        “18 U.S. Code § 4.Misprision of felony

        Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

        (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)”

        It’s rarely prosecuted. In this case it might have been considering the city of Chicago is suing Smollett for $130k. But the prosecutors would have to prove they had knowledge of Smollett’s plot before the authorities contacted them. Given that they were truthful when they were contacted that would be difficult to do. It isn’t like they were trying to conceal anything.

      Don’t forget that racist slob michelle obama’s role in this:

      Police union: Investigate prosecutor who texted former top aide to Michelle Obama about Jussie Smollett:

    when Smollet reported a crime, they knew it wasn’t.

    So what? Since when did they have a duty to report him? I don’t think misprision of making a false statement is on the books.

    I’m thinking conspiracy, aiding and abetting. Something.

    They didn’t agree with him to commit a crime. Their transaction was completely legal. The only crime was his false report, and they had nothing to do with that.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | February 26, 2020 at 10:30 am

      Given that Smollett has been charged with six felonies, it’s on the books. They had a duty to report him.

      But it would be a loser of a case against these guys. Again, prosecutors would have to prove they were aware that Smollett committed those felonies.

        RandomCrank in reply to Arminius. | February 26, 2020 at 4:05 pm

        I’d be very surprised if the Nigerians were prosecuted for this. I presume (maybe wrongly?) that they had a lawyer from the get-go, and that they received immunity in return for complete details.

The most egregious part of this trainwreck is slimeball Kim Foxx running for re-election as Cook County State’s Attorney.

I look forward to a black prosecutor convicting Juicy Smolliet against a white defense attorney. I look forward to the Nigerian brothers testifying against Juicy. I look forward to a lot of black celebrities who initially stood up for Juicy, speaking against him. That last sentence not too likely.

Smollet can’t plead guilty.

A guilty plea might mean allocution, which would implicate Obama. Smollet’ll take the fall if he absolutely has to, but he knows the score….

I am gay, grew up in Milwaukee, and know Chicago’s “Streeterville” neighborhood fairly well, having stayed at hotels there and nearby a half-dozen times. When Smollett reported the attack, I was interested and dived into the details. It was quickly apparent that he was lying, and I was never surprised when this emerged.

When I was 19 years old, which would be 43 years ago, I was roughed up as I left a gay bar in Madison, Wisconsin, where I was attending college. Fortunately, that incident wasn’t serious and the only thing wounded was my ego. But I’ve never forgotten it, and when Smollett made his false claim I was upset because of the doubt it might cast on genuine reports.

I salute Chicago’s special prosecutor for filing the charges, and await any federal action for the letter Smollett sent that contained the requisite mysterious white powder. At least in theory, that’s a terrorism-related issue, and I very much hope the feds pursue it to the full extent of the law.

    TY Mr. Crank.

    This is exactly why false claims based on identity are so terrible. Some people(like me) will absolutely view any claims following with suspicion. The cry of wolf echoes for a long time.

    Anacleto Mitraglia in reply to RandomCrank. | February 25, 2020 at 11:36 am

    You’re lucky enough you survived Dahmer.

    healthguyfsu in reply to RandomCrank. | February 25, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    The left says you aren’t allowed to fraternize with us conservatives if you are gay.

    To that, I say screw them!

      RandomCrank in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 26, 2020 at 12:44 pm

      When it comes to screwing, I’ve never applied a political test. LOL

        Arminius in reply to RandomCrank. | February 26, 2020 at 2:40 pm

        I don’t know if you could call it a political test, but when I was stationed in Virginia Beach my friends and I would occasionally spend weekends barhopping in Washington D.C. One weekend I ran into a girl I went to high school with. We had a good enough time so that I agreed I’d come up and spend the next weekend with her.

        Oh. My. Gawd. It was horrendous. She turned out to have become a raving feminist. And when I say raving, I am using the word correctly. She wouldn’t shut up about how she was strong and empowered because of feminism, all her feminist friends were strong and empowered, and then she went into excruciating detail about all the ways she was now strong and empowered.

        I like strong and empowered women. But, pro tip. Truly strong and empowered women don’t spend an entire Saturday telling you about it. I don’t know why I just didn’t leave and drive back after lunch. I was hoping things would get better. Things didn’t. The only way I made it through dinner was by drinking the entire years worth of Scotland’s production. So after dinner we go back to her place. I thought about getting a motel room but my car is parked in her driveway (we were cabbing it so I could drink as much as I needed to put up with her b***s***) so I’d just have so see her the next morning anyway.

        She changes into a teddy and asks me if I want to come to bed. She actually looked pretty good in the lingerie, so the thought, “Well, I’m here, so why not.” But the next thought was, “Hell no.”

        All of a sudden I realize I have standards.

        So I tell her, “I’m good on the couch.”

        The next morning we’re drinking coffee on her back patio. She’s still wearing the teddy, apparently hopefully. And she locks us out. I’m not worried as I’m fully dressed and my car keys are in the pocket. She can keep the other change of clothes or give it to Goodwill. I don’t care, but she starts to panic. She actually thought maybe one of the neighbors would have a spare key to her house. Right. But I was amused by the thought of her prancing around the neighborhood in her teddy searching for the spare key that any sane person would know doesn’t exist.

        But I saved her from that publicly humiliating fate. I went to my car, got the tire iron, pried loose the frame around one of the window panes on her back door, removed the pane of glass, reached in and unlocked the door. Then I left. And I must have laughed throughout the entire two hour drive, practically giddy I was able to make good my escape without having to chew my arm off to get out of her bed.

          RandomCrank in reply to Arminius. | February 26, 2020 at 3:21 pm

          I have a shorter take on it: “I’ve never been argued into a hardon, but I’ve been argued out of a few.” LOL

    Arminius in reply to RandomCrank. | February 26, 2020 at 2:03 pm

    I was sure he was lying. Pace Major Wood, but a Subway is either a corporate store or a franchise. Franchisees are told they own their own business, but franchisees really don’t. Basically when you buy a franchise you are buying a job. You do business in accordance with the franchise agreement. So the franchisor sets your operating hours.

    Subway’s standard nationwide closing time is 10:00pm. Franchisees do have some flexibility; they can close one or two hours earlier or stay open one or two hours later. When my business partner and I opened our restaurant we found a nearly ideal place in Uptown in Dallas. It was a former Philly Cheesesteak franchise. Rents in Uptown are expensive. While the owner did good lunch business, nobody goes out for a Philly Cheesesteak dinner. But the guy had to abide by the franchise agreement, so he was required to stay open for hours after he sold his last sandwich. He was going broke, so he gave up and broke the lease (and since it was already kind of set up as a restaurant we didn’t have to do major renovations).

    Figure the odds of finding a Subway open for business at 2:00am on a Tuesday night in January when the night time low temperature in Chicago was supposed to be -23 degrees. It was so cold the local TV weather guessers were telling people to avoid talking or taking deep breaths as air that cold can cause lung damage.

    Plus, since when is Chicago “MAGA country?”

      RandomCrank in reply to Arminius. | February 26, 2020 at 3:25 pm

      Without knowing about the Subway in question, having stayed in Streeterville maybe a half-dozen times on business and for personal travel, it’s a late neighborhood. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a Subway in that neighborhood was open late, or even all night.

      It wasn’t -23 degrees that night. I dove into the deep end on the whole thing (see my other comment in this thread) and looked at the temperature. The really cold part of that cold snap didn’t happen on the night in question.

      Don’t nail me to the cross on the specific number, but I think it was somewhere around 0 that night, which is not unusual in Chicago at that time of year.

a motion in Linn’s courtroom to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds.

Say what? What does it take to get a lawyer sanctioned for making frivolous motions? Surely every first year law student knows that jeopardy attaches when a jury is seated and not before.

    Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | February 25, 2020 at 6:54 am

    Exactly! The “double jeopardy” claim is ridiculous.

        Here’s the relevant part:

        (a) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for the same offense, based upon the same facts, if that former prosecution:

        (1) resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal or in a determination that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction;

        Nope. None of these things happened.

        (2) was terminated by a final order or judgment, even if entered before trial, that required a determination inconsistent with any fact or legal proposition necessary to a conviction in the subsequent prosecution; or

        Nope. No such determination was made.

        (3) was terminated improperly after the jury was impaneled and sworn or, in a trial before a court without a jury, after the first witness was sworn but before findings were rendered by the trier of facts, or after a plea of guilty was accepted by the court.

        Nope. So no double jeopardy, even in Illinois, and the lawyers moving for it ought to be sanctioned.

    JimWoo in reply to Milhouse. | February 25, 2020 at 10:37 am

    Every first year law student knows in a bench trial there is no jury. Such as in the Aleman case.

      Tom Servo in reply to JimWoo. | February 25, 2020 at 1:07 pm

      The proper phrase I believe would be “properly adjudicated”. Double jeopardy only applies if a jury has been empaneled, OR if in a Bench Trial a witness has been sworn in and begins to give evidence, or after a court has unconditionally accepted a defendants plea.

      None of these apply in the Jussie Smollet case.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | February 25, 2020 at 12:12 pm

    Not sure why this got so many dv, but I guess you are starting to get a rep.

    Anyhow, isn’t it further than jury seating? You can get a mistrial and still be tried again. I thought a verdict(acquittal or a guilty verdict) was the only point at which double jeopardy immunity came into play.

    With guilty, double jeopardy keeps you from being punished beyond the sentence from your first trial for the same crime.

      Tom Servo in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 25, 2020 at 1:12 pm

      Anyhow, isn’t it further than jury seating? You can get a mistrial and still be tried again. I thought a verdict(acquittal or a guilty verdict) was the only point at which double jeopardy immunity came into play.”

      What the jury empaneling requirement means is that if the Prosecution starts a trial, seats a jury, and THEN drops charges, they can’t go back and start them up again. Similar case in a bench trial. Mistrial is a special case, in that it automatically calls for a do-over, unless the prosecution declines.

Anacleto Mitraglia | February 25, 2020 at 9:20 am

The Bros don’t risk very much, I believe: at worst, they won’t get a green card.
On the other hand, I’d like to know if this trial will also be about the fake white-powdered letter, that as I understand it’s a far worse crime, worth a long time.
It was said that in the brother’s apartment the cops have found the magazines the letters were cut out from: in that case for Jussie it’s game over. Or was it just gossip?

    For the attack hoax he’s being brought up on state crimes.

    Mailing even a hoax terrorist threat through the mail is a federal crime. I have no idea why he hasn’t already been charged since by all available information it’s a slam-dunk case.

      RandomCrank in reply to Arminius. | February 26, 2020 at 3:30 pm

      I am wondering exactly the same thing. The most hopeful interpretation I can think of is that maybe the feds have been waiting for the local charges to be resolved before jumping in. Keep in mind that Foxx’s dismissal was immediately greeted with local outrage, followed by appointment of the special prosecutor who has filed the second set of charges.

      It could be that the feds have simply been waiting until all of that dust settles. If, as seems likely, Smollett is convicted, the feds would have a clear path to pile on later without being credibly accused of a political prosecution.

        RandomCrank in reply to RandomCrank. | February 26, 2020 at 3:52 pm

        ^If the feds do go after him, from the research I did a year ago, those charges would potentially carry much more serious penalties, including hard prison time. I hope the feds follow through.

Hope this jerk gets absolutely shredded in court.