Scribd
Upload
13K views21 pages

Jussie Smollett Special Prosecutor Ruling

Cook County Judge Michael Toomin granted a request for a special prosecutor to investigate Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx's handling of the Jussie Smollett case. That special prosecutor also will be allowed to seek charges against Smollett if they find "reasonable grounds" to do so.

Uploaded by

Todd Feurer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
13K views21 pages

Jussie Smollett Special Prosecutor Ruling

Cook County Judge Michael Toomin granted a request for a special prosecutor to investigate Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx's handling of the Jussie Smollett case. That special prosecutor also will be allowed to seek charges against Smollett if they find "reasonable grounds" to do so.

Uploaded by

Todd Feurer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION No. 19 MR 00014 RE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ael P, Toomin Judge Presiding ORDER Petitioner, Sheila O’Brien, seeks the appointment of a special prosecutor to reinstate and further prosecute the case of the People of the State of Illinois v. Jussie Smollett, No. 19 CR 0310401, to investigate the actions of any person or office involved in the investigation, prosecution and dismissal of that matter, and to also investigate the procedures of the Cook County State’s Attorney's Office regarding charging decisions, bonds, deferred prosecutions and recusals. Respondent, Kim Foxx, State’s Attomey of Cook County, denies that that the Smollett prosecution was compromised, impeded or undermined by any illegal or improper action and further contends that petitioner cannot meet the standards for appointment of a special prosecutor. Accordingly, respondent maintains the petition should be denied. ‘he issues have been joined by the pleadings and exhibits and following oral argument the matter was taken under advisement. The court will now address the merits of the petition, BACKGROUN! The instant petition has its genesis in a story unique to the anals of the Criminal Court. The principal character, Jussie Smollett, is an acclaimed actor known to the public from his performances in the television series, “Empire.” But his talents were not destined to be confined to that production. Rather, in perhaps the most prominent display of his acting potential, Smollett conceived a fantasy that propelled him from the role of a sympathetic victim of a vicious homophobic attack to that of a charlatan who fomented a hoax the equal of any twisted television intrigue. Petitioner's factual allegations stem from a number of articles published in the Chicago ‘Tribune, the Chicago Sun-times and other newspapers as well as local broadcasts, together with redacted Chicago Police Department reports and materials recently released by the State’s Attomey’s Office, Although the court recognizes that portions of these sources may contain hearsay rather than “facts” within the semblance of a trial record, the materials provide a backdrop for consideration of the legal issues raised by the petition." The story begins on January 22, 2019, when Smollett first sought the aid of the Chicago Police Department. Smollett reported that he was the recipient of an envelope delivered to the “Empire” studio on Chicago's West Side. Inside, was an unsettling note with letters apparently cut out from an unidentifiable publication, forming what appeared to be a racial and homophobic message that Smollett perceived as a threat, His fear was further heightened by the stick figure * Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, its value depending upon the credibility ofthe declarant, People v. Murphy, 157 Il. App. 34 115, 118, (1987); see also Il. R. Evid. 801 (a)- (©) (ff. Jan. 1, 2011). Yet, certain of such statements may be admissible for other purposes (People v. Davis, 130 TIL, App. 3¢ 41, 53, (1984), including to simply show that a statement was made, to characterize an act, to show its effect om the listener, or to explain the steps in an investigation. See M. Graham, Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 801.5, at 763-78 (10th ed. 2010); and Ill R. Evid. 803 and 804. Admissions and prior inconsistent statements, which appear prominently inthe parties’ submissions, are likewise not considered hearsay. Graham, §§ 801.9 and 801.14; and Ill, R. Evid. 801(@)(1), (2). displayed on the note, holding @ gun pointed at the figure’s head, Additionally, the envelope contained a white powder substance that the police later determined to be aspirin, A week later, on January 29, 2019, Smollett’s production manager called 911 to report that Jussie had been attacked by two men outside a local sandwich shop at two o’clock that morning. Smollett, who is black and gay, later told the police he was physically attacked as he returned home from an early morning stop at the nearby Subway store. Smollett claimed that ‘two masked men shouted homophobic and racial slurs, and as they beat him yelled “This is MAGA country.” After looping a rope around his neck, the offenders who reportedly were white, poured “an unknown substance” on him before running away. When news of the attack was released to the publi members of the United Sates Congress, television talk show hosts and other public figures expressed outrage. This included even the President of the United States who after viewing this story declared, “It doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.” Acting on the belief that what had transpired was potentially a hate crime, the response of law enforcement was swift and certain. On the day following the attack, at least a dozen detectives combed hundreds of hours of surveillance camera footage in the area Smollett designated as the scene of the attack, None of the footage revealed anything resembling the attack. However, detectives did observe images of two people in the area, but their faces were indistinguishable, As the investigation progressed the police began to focus on two brothers who soon came to be viewed as suspects. On February 13, 2019, as they returned from Nij a, the brothers were taken into custody and questioned. ‘The following day their apartment was searched.

You might also like