This writing comes less than 24 hours after the infamous Jussie Smollett was sentenced in Chicago following his convictions on five counts of felony disorderly conduct in the nature of false reporting to police. See the Featured Article of December 10, 2021 “Marching for Jussie” for the CLB review of the conviction and the statement favoring “an executed sentence of imprisonment.”¹ That is what Jussie received: 30 months of probation without travel restriction or in-person reporting; restitution (to the City of Chicago) of just over $120,000.00; a fine of $25,000.00; and (lastly) 150 days in the Cook County Jail. Had your blogger been the sentencing judge, Jussie’s time to serve would have been a year. But had your blogger been the judge of pre-trial proceedings, Jussie probably would have received a dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. The question may be whether Jussie’s “forfeiture” of a $10,000.00 cash bond, from the first round of charges that were dismissed by the office of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, amounted to a “penalty” for double jeopardy purposes. The position of the CLB is that the bond forfeiture was punitive for double jeopardy purposes such that Jussie was exempt from further punishment. Jussie’s trial court judge overruled a double jeopardy motion early in the proceedings. Soon we shall know what the Illinois Court of Appeals thinks. Though I have no sympathy whatsoever for Jussie Smollett in jail, I support his double jeopardy argument. Still, I would be content with Jussie serving all of his executed sentence before an appellate reversal of his convictions.
The CLB suspects that special prosecutor Dan Webb knew that there was a double jeopardy issue but didn’t care. Dan Webb should not be applauded for ignoring a cherished constitutional protection.
Those who listened to the long monologue of the sentencing judge know that he tempered justice with mercy, though aggravating factors clearly outweighed Jussie’s mitigating circumstances.
One damning circumstance is how Jussie collected and tendered letters from respected Black celebrities attesting to Jussie’s (purported) good character and then betrayed that trust with his post-sentencing rant claiming innocence. There was absolutely no scintilla of acceptance of responsibility. Jussie proved beyond doubt that he was undeserving of mercy. That observation brings to mind, however, an argument that I have made more than once at sentencings. The point is that mercy, is, by its nature, undeserved. A convicted man deserving of a light sentence need only ask for justice. Mercy is for those damned, contemptible, vile beings like Jussie², who received a fair measure of mercy.
___________
¹ Notably, Jussie Smollett followed none of the advice therein on what he should do to merit a lighter sentence.
² The sentencing judge described Jussie and his actions with terms including “disgraceful,” “selfish,” and “narcissistic.” The CLB concurs.
Leave a Reply