- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 32,111
- Reaction score
- 43,424
Sherdog's favorite thread topic has a big update
In a decision issued Thursday, the court said the "Empire" actor, 42, should not have been charged for the same incident a second time after the original charges brought against him were dropped in 2019. "Because the initial charges were dismissed as part of an agreement" with Smollett and he "performed his part of the agreement, the second prosecution was barred," the ruling said. "We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied."
The article goes on but that's basically it. What a fucked up logic path. Because clear corruption led to a sham investigation, the constitutional thing would be to stick to the sham charge drop. If the charges had only been dropped, the charges could be picked up again. But because they charges were dropped in exchange for $10,000 (forfeiting his bond)... the charges have to remain dropped.
Smollett served 6 days in jail after blaming two random white men the cops brought in for a lineup who would have faced up to 15 years if convicted due to his blatant lie for self advancement.
In a decision issued Thursday, the court said the "Empire" actor, 42, should not have been charged for the same incident a second time after the original charges brought against him were dropped in 2019. "Because the initial charges were dismissed as part of an agreement" with Smollett and he "performed his part of the agreement, the second prosecution was barred," the ruling said. "We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied."
The article goes on but that's basically it. What a fucked up logic path. Because clear corruption led to a sham investigation, the constitutional thing would be to stick to the sham charge drop. If the charges had only been dropped, the charges could be picked up again. But because they charges were dropped in exchange for $10,000 (forfeiting his bond)... the charges have to remain dropped.
Smollett served 6 days in jail after blaming two random white men the cops brought in for a lineup who would have faced up to 15 years if convicted due to his blatant lie for self advancement.
