Jussie Smollett Faces New Felony Charges: How Unrepentant Public Statements Could Lead to Jail Time
The legal saga surrounding former Empire star, Jussie Smollett, has taken a dramatic turn, reigniting national discussions and placing the actor back in the crosshairs of the justice system. Despite a highly controversial dismissal of initial charges last year, Smollett now faces a fresh indictment carrying six new felony counts, each potentially leading to a prison sentence. Legal experts are weighing in on the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case, particularly pointing to Smollett’s public defiance and repeated declarations of innocence as a critical factor in his renewed legal woes.
According to Illinois criminal defense attorney Steven R. Hunter, Smollett, 37, could be looking at one to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections if convicted on these new charges. The actor was indicted on February 11, 2020, in connection with claims that he orchestrated a fake hate crime in Chicago in January 2019. This new indictment comes after the initial 16 felony charges against him were controversially dropped just two months after they were filed. However, what truly sets this case apart, according to Hunter, is Smollett’s decision to not simply accept his lucky break, but instead to publicly challenge the narrative and criticize the Chicago Police Department. This move, Hunter exclusively tells HollywoodLife, was a profound misstep with severe consequences.
Hunter elaborates on the gravity of Smollett’s post-dismissal behavior, stating, “Jussie Smollett and his legal team likely made a monumental error in judgment. He was extended a significant gesture of leniency, essentially a deal from the prosecution that culminated in the dismissal of all charges. This arrangement typically involved the forfeiture of his bond and the completion of some community service. The unwritten, yet universally understood, condition of such a favorable outcome is often silence – a quiet acceptance of the outcome, allowing the case to fade from public memory and the legal docket.”
“However,” Hunter continues, “instead of embracing this opportunity for a fresh start and moving forward discreetly, Smollett chose a different path. Immediately following the dismissal, he stepped outside the courthouse and engaged in numerous public statements, not only vehemently declaring his innocence but also unequivocally asserting that no such deal had been made. Furthermore, both he and his lawyers publicly contended that the dismissal of the case was solely due to the prosecution possessing an inherently weak case, rather than any agreement or act of prosecutorial discretion. This public posturing, in direct contradiction to the spirit of the original arrangement, appears to have backfired spectacularly, drawing renewed scrutiny and ultimately leading to the current predicament.”
The genesis of this complex legal battle dates back to January 29, 2019, when Jussie Smollett reported to Chicago police that he had been the victim of a brutal hate crime. The actor claimed he was ambushed in the early hours by two unknown assailants who, according to his account, were wearing ‘MAGA’ hats – a clear reference to former President Donald Trump’s political slogan. Smollett alleged that his attackers poured an unknown chemical substance, later identified as bleach, on him, placed a noose around his neck, and subjected him to a torrent of racial and homophobic slurs. He further claimed that one of the assailants shouted, “This is MAGA country,” adding a highly politicized dimension to the alleged assault. Given Smollett’s public identity as a gay African American man, the incident immediately garnered national and international headlines, sparking widespread outrage and concern.
However, the initial investigation by the Chicago Police Department quickly began to unravel Smollett’s narrative. Detectives, after exhaustive inquiries including reviewing surveillance footage, interviewing witnesses, and tracking down leads, grew increasingly suspicious of the actor’s account. Their investigation eventually led them to two brothers, Abel Osundairo and Ola Osundairo, aspiring actors whom Smollett knew from the set of Empire. The brothers, initially considered persons of interest, later claimed that Smollett had actually paid them $3,500 to stage the entire attack. This revelation shifted the investigation’s focus dramatically, leading police to accuse Smollett of orchestrating the entire incident himself, effectively faking a hate crime and filing a false police report.
The subsequent handling of the case became a hotbed of controversy. Despite the Chicago Police Department’s strong recommendation for felony charges against Smollett for filing a false police report, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s office made the astonishing decision to drop all 16 felony counts against the actor just two months after the indictment. This dismissal, in exchange for Smollett forfeiting his $10,000 bail and completing a mere 16 hours of community service, sparked immediate and widespread public outcry. Critics, including Chicago’s then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, condemned the move as a miscarriage of justice, arguing it sent a dangerous message about accountability, particularly for celebrities. The sudden reversal left many questioning the transparency and fairness of the legal system, further intensifying the media scrutiny surrounding Smollett.
The controversy did not subside. In response to the unprecedented nature of the dismissal and significant public and political pressure, Judge Michael Toomin took the extraordinary step in June 2019 of appointing a special prosecutor, Dan K. Webb, to independently review the entire case. Webb, a former U.S. Attorney with a formidable reputation, was tasked with investigating not only the original allegations against Smollett but also the circumstances surrounding the decision by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to drop the initial charges. This appointment signaled a deeper commitment to uncovering the truth and ensuring proper legal procedures were followed, irrespective of the initial outcome.
Beyond the criminal proceedings, the City of Chicago also initiated a civil lawsuit against Smollett. The city sought to recover the substantial costs incurred by the Chicago Police Department during their extensive investigation into the alleged hate crime, which included significant police overtime expenses. This civil action underscored the financial burden and resource drain caused by the alleged hoax, further highlighting the multifaceted legal challenges Smollett faced.
On February 11, 2020, after a thorough and independent investigation, Special Prosecutor Dan K. Webb announced the grand jury had returned a new indictment against Jussie Smollett, this time with six new felony charges. These charges, specifically for disorderly conduct pertaining to making multiple false police reports, are all classified as felonies under Illinois law. In a statement accompanying the announcement, Webb articulated the rationale behind the re-indictment: “Several factors went into this determination, including the extensive nature of Mr. Smollett’s false police reports, and the significant resources expended by the Chicago Police Department to investigate these false reports.” This statement emphasized the seriousness with which the special prosecutor viewed Smollett’s alleged actions and their impact on public resources.
According to Steven R. Hunter, the re-indictment of felony charges after an initial dismissal is an “extremely unusual” occurrence in the legal landscape. Hunter explains the profound rarity of such an event: “It is exceptionally uncommon for felony charges to be reinstated once they have been formally dismissed. In my extensive experience, on the truly rare occasions that I have witnessed such a reinstatement, it has almost exclusively been precipitated by some significant new development. This might include, for example, the defendant being apprehended and charged with an entirely new, unrelated crime while awaiting a resolution of their initial case, or the discovery of compelling new evidence that was previously unavailable.” Hunter further clarifies, “(It is important to note that Smollett was not re-arrested in the interim, nor were entirely new pieces of evidence publicly revealed to have prompted the re-indictment in the traditional sense.) This situation is not typical in the slightest. I hold a firm belief that had Jussie Smollett and his legal counsel maintained a strategic silence following the initial dismissal, these subsequent and far more perilous legal developments very likely would never have come to pass.” This legal expert’s strong assertion underscores the critical role of Smollett’s public actions in his current predicament.
The implications of these new felony charges are substantial for Jussie Smollett. While a conviction on Class 4 felonies in Illinois typically offers a range of sentencing possibilities, including probation, attorney Steven Hunter suggests that Smollett’s unique circumstances could lead to a far more severe outcome: actual jail time. “All of the counts in this new indictment are classified as Class 4 felonies,” Hunter explains. “Under Illinois law, these offenses carry a statutory possibility of imprisonment ranging from one to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. However, they also present the alternative possibility of felony probation, which often includes conditions such as community service, regular check-ins with a probation officer, and potentially fines or restitution.”
Hunter further elaborates on why Smollett’s case stands out from the norm: “Under typical or ‘normal’ circumstances, with no prior serious criminal record, someone in Smollett’s position, facing Class 4 felonies of this nature, would almost certainly be a prime candidate for felony probation. The judicial system often favors rehabilitation over incarceration for first-time felony offenders, especially when the charges don’t involve violent crime against another individual. However, Jussie Smollett’s case is anything but normal. His persistent and very public declarations of innocence, coupled with his outspoken criticism of the very authorities who initially investigated him – after receiving what was widely considered an incredibly lenient deal – present a significant challenge to the court’s perception of his remorse and willingness to accept responsibility. This public posture, perceived by many as unrepentant defiance, could significantly influence a judge’s sentencing decision if he is ultimately convicted. In such an extraordinary scenario, where the defendant has shown such public recalcitrance, there is a very real possibility that Jussie Smollett, if found guilty, may indeed face incarceration rather than simply a probationary sentence.” This expert analysis highlights the critical interplay between legal procedure, public perception, and a defendant’s conduct outside the courtroom.
The Jussie Smollett case continues to serve as a high-profile example of how a defendant’s actions, both inside and outside the courtroom, can profoundly impact the trajectory of their legal battle. From the initial alleged hoax to the controversial dismissal and now the unprecedented re-indictment, the saga underscores the complexities of criminal justice, the power of public opinion, and the crucial importance of strategic legal advice – especially when a gift of leniency is extended.