Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

His verdict was not overturned on evidence.Ā 

The unethical prosecutor, whose decision itself was overturned, was allowed to stand.

Ā Here is an example.

A guy crossed the street and commited jaywalking. A guy driving a car had to swerve to miss the guy who was jaywalking.

After getting in an argument, the driver attempted to drive away and the guy who jaywalked shoots and kills him in basically a road rage incident. He was arrested for murder Ā 

For political reasons, the prosecutor tells the jaywalker, if you plead guilty to the pedestrian traffic charge, we will drop the murder charge. Ā Naturally, he agreed, knowing that heā€™s been given a gift for appearance.

Another prosecutor cameĀ along and asked on appeal to reinstate the murder charges. An appeals court agreed saying that there is an ample evidence for such a charge. They went to trial and the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that murder was committed.

In steps to state Supreme Court. While it is obvious that all of the evidence was valid and itā€™s obviously that the murder was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because the special prosecutor allowed the murder suspect to plead guilty to a traffic ticket, he canā€™t be charged again for murder under double Jeopardy.

Ā 

Posted
13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

His verdict was not overturned on evidence.Ā 

The unethical prosecutor, whose decision itself was overturned, was allowed to stand.

Ā Here is an example.

A guy crossed the street and commited jaywalking. A guy driving a car had to swerve to miss the guy who was jaywalking.

After getting in an argument, the driver attempted to drive away and the guy who jaywalked shoots and kills him in basically a road rage incident. He was arrested for murder Ā 

For political reasons, the prosecutor tells the jaywalker, if you plead guilty to the pedestrian traffic charge, we will drop the murder charge. Ā Naturally, he agreed, knowing that heā€™s been given a gift for appearance.

Another prosecutor cameĀ along and asked on appeal to reinstate the murder charges. An appeals court agreed saying that there is an ample evidence for such a charge. They went to trial and the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that murder was committed.

In steps to state Supreme Court. While it is obvious that all of the evidence was valid and itā€™s obviously that the murder was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because the special prosecutor allowed the murder suspect to plead guilty to a traffic ticket, he canā€™t be charged again for murder under double Jeopardy.

Ā 

Thanks for the explanation.

Posted

For anyone who wishes to spend as much as 15 minutes (but the first 7 minutes or so tells the tale) watching a youtube video, this explains the outcome by a lawyer.Ā 

Kim Foxx unethical and probably illegal advised Smollett and his family. The prosecutor was in effect also playing defense attorney against her office and herself. Thatā€™s right folks. The prosecutor told the defendant how to proceed.

Ā She the recused herself and then violated Illinois law. By state law, it supposed to go to an outside prosecutor with no ties to the DA. Unlawfully Foxx created a position that did not exist and appointed her first assistant as special prosecutor. Again, this was a violation of state law.

She then made a deal with a defense attorney where Smollett would forfeit his bond in lieu of prosecution. Again, this was a violation of law as she was not allowed to make a deal or dismiss the case after she had recused herself. Smollettā€™s attorney is in the video basically saying that forfeiting his $10,000 bail was a gift to the state although she doesnā€™t use those words.

The state stepped in and said all of this was unlawful. Since it was unlawful and Foxx had no authority to dismiss the case, Ā double Jeopardy did not apply and they could still try Smollett with the facts. As we all know, they then got a conviction by presenting the evidence to a jury.

His lawyers appealed and it went to the Illinois Supreme Court. They ruled that even virtually though everything that Kim Foxx did was unlawful, they were stuck with the fact that he did take a plea deal in open court, even if unlawful, so the state cannot come back and try him again.

Ā 

Ā 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,283
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Malachi
    Newest Member
    Malachi
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...