HIGH drama in the city of Chicago!
The prosecutor in the case against Jussie Smollett — the woman who ultimately decided NOT to go forward with charges against the Empire actor — is explaining her decision to cut him loose from the justice system, and in doing so, she’s blasting her colleagues in the Mayor’s office, and the Chicago Police Department! Uh-oh!!
Related: The City Of Chicago Wants Jussie To Pay $130K!
Kim Foxx, Cook County’s State Attorney who was set to prosecute Smollett and ultimately didn’t, wrote an op-ed commentary in the Chicago Tribune on Friday night explaining why she dropped all charges, and how the case itself wasn’t a sure-fire victory like some people thought.
For one, she definitely doesn’t exonerate Smollett; in fact, she literally says that in the op-ed. Much in the same way the Robert Mueller report findings around Donald Trump, there’s a literal sentence in the op-ed where Foxx explicitly notes (below):
“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.”
She goes on, though, and explains more in depth exactly why Smollett is not on trial right now, writing in part (below):
“Falsely reporting any crime is itself a crime; falsely reporting a hate crime is so much worse, and I condemn in the strongest possible way anyone who does that. Falsely reporting a hate crime causes immeasurable harm to the victims of actual crimes, whether because they are less likely to be believed or, worse, because they are afraid to report their crimes in the first place for fear of not being believed.
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.”
Interesting to hear some of her reasoning there, for sure. But then, things get interesting.
Related: Trump REALLY Wants The FBI To Review This Case…
In a passage later in the commentary, Foxx seems to call out the hesitancy of the police department and mayor’s office to back her prosecutorial decisions, writing (below):
“But more important than the dispassionate legal justification, there was another reason that I believe our decision not to prosecute the case was the right one.
Yes, falsely reporting a hate crime makes me angry, and anyone who does that deserves the community’s outrage. But, as I’ve said since before I was elected, we must separate the people at whom we are angry from the people of whom we are afraid. I am angry at anyone who falsely reports a crime. I am afraid when I see a little girl shot dead while sitting on her mother’s lap. I am afraid when I see a CPD commander slain by a four-time felon who was walking the streets. I am also afraid when I see CPD resources used to initially cover up the shooting death of Laquan McDonald.
I was elected on a promise to rethink the justice system, to keep people out of prison who do not pose a danger to the community. I promised to spend my office’s finite resources on the most serious crimes in order to create communities that are both safer and fairer.”
Now that’s VERY interesting… it’s not just about prosecuting crimes, but picking and choosing WHICH crimes to prosecute based on who makes people afraid? Wow.
Read the whole op-ed HERE.
Do U agree with THAT, Perezcious readers?!?! That it’s no longer a blind justice system based on prosecuting crimes, but one that picks and chooses based on… Foxx’s opinion alone? That seems like a wild statement to make. Thoughts?? Share your opinions on it with us in the comments (below)…
[Image via WENN]
Related Posts
