Jussie Smollett's final act: How a hate crime hoax became a pitch for jury nullification
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In his testimony before a Chicago jury this week, actor Jussie Smollett talked about how he has had to carefully maintain his image as “a black Cary Grant.” The “Empire” star, however, seemed more like a modern version of Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg in “The Caine Mutiny,” a delusional witness lashing out at every other witness as “scoffing at me, spreading wild rumors.”
Many have marveled at the audacity of Smollett, who literally is asking jurors to discard not just every piece of material evidence, videotape and eyewitness testimony but to defy any semblance of logic in accepting his account of a racist attack by Trump supporters. That's because he is not really trying to convince anyone he didn’t stage the attack with the help of Nigerian brothers Abimbola and Olabingo Osundairo. He is trying to get the jury to vote for him despite his guilt. It is called jury nullification, and this may be the most raw example of the practice in decades. Even if he can get a single holdout juror, he has a hung jury.
After all, Smollett followed a similar strategy successfully in the media for months. He knew that “facts” are whatever people want them to be. Some of us expressed skepticism over Smollett’s initial account: two Trump supporters coming upon him around 2 a.m. in Chicago on a freezing night in January 2019, and then allegedly beating him, putting a noose around his neck, pouring a chemical on him and declaring — perhaps for the first time in history — that Chicago is “MAGA country.” Making this even more bizarre was that the spontaneous attack occurred shortly after Smollett was the target of a racist letter threatening to lynch him — a letter that prosecutors believe he wrote.
None of that mattered, though, because Smollett knew his audience. Vice President Kamala Harris , then a U.S. senator, denounced what happened as an “attempted modern-day lynching.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it was a “homophobic attack and an affront to our humanity.” In a fawning interview, ABC’s Robin Roberts described Smollett as “bruised but not broken” and breathlessly concluded the segment with “Beautiful, thank you, Jussie.”
Even when evidence mounted that this was a hoax, some media figures lashed out at Smollett’s doubters. ABC’s “The Talk” host Sara Gilbert was irate: “I find so personally offensive that a gay Black man is targeted and then suddenly he becomes the victim of people’s disbelief.”
Smollett’s attack was simply one of those “facts too good to check.” It made more sense to assume there are roaming bands of MAGA-hatted Trump supporters attacking Black people on Chicago’s streets.
In a courtroom, such willful blindness is supposed to yield to objective evidence. However, that is where jury nullification comes in. Georgetown law professor and MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler has been a long-standing advocate of Black jurors engaging in jury nullification in some cases involving Black defendants. Butler wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that black lives matter.”
Jury nullification is not an act of willful blindness. Rather, it is an act of willful disregard of the evidence. It occurs when jurors acquit regardless of the evidence of guilt. It is not that they don’t see or understand the evidence; they simply choose the individual over the evidence.
Lawyers usually cannot expressly ask jurors to disregard the evidence of a case in contradiction to the judge’s instructions. But they can make the case for nullification in not-so-subtle ways. In Smollett’s case, the defendant talked about his mistrust of the police and openly accused the prosecutor of misrepresenting facts to the jury. In front of the jury, he declared: “I'm a Black man in America and I do not trust police.”
Smollett was curt on cross examination, insisting that the two Nigerian brothers (one of whom he said was once his lover), the Chicago police, the prosecutors and others all sought to frame him. Smollett even chastised prosecutor Dan Webb for reading from Smollett’s Instagram messages, which included the N-word; Smollett told Webb to spell or abbreviate the word so as not to offend "every African American in this room."
There have been historical uses of jury nullification to resist government abuse, including racist prosecutions. One of the first such instances was the acquittal in 1735 of publisher John Peter Zenger , who printed seditious libels against abusive colonial governor William Cosby.
However, jury nullification can have a darker side, when jurors refuse to convict people because they agree with a crime, including possible hate crimes. That was the argument once made implicitly to some white Southern jurors in the early to mid-20th century to disregard crimes committed against African Americans, even murder.
The Smollett defense is a classic plea for nullification, which is why it seems so bizarre to most people weighing the evidence. The trial becomes a struggle over perceptions rather than proof. Even Smollett’s lawyers claimed to be victims in the courtroom. Defense attorney Tamara Walker demanded a mistrial in a sidebar conversation with attorneys from both sides and Cook County Judge James Linn. Walker reportedly broke into tears after accusing the judge of lunging at her in the courtroom and making faces from the bench.
Jurors can develop a strange sense of improvised justice in nullification verdicts. In Ireland, there was a famous verdict in the case of an Englishman who accused an Irishman of stealing a pair of boots. The guilt of the defendant was glaring, but the Irish jury ruled against the Englishman — and added one line to the jury form: “We do believe O’Brien should give the Englishman back his boots.”
Smollett is seeking the same conscious act of nullification from this Chicago jury. There is, however, more at stake than a pair of boots. Smollett is the very definition of a race-baiter seeking to use our racial divisions for his personal aggrandizement and advancement. If successful, he would reduce the court to the same narrative-driven reality of our politics and entertainment arenas.
In that sense, Smollett is still playing to his audience. He knows reality is not what is true but what an audience wants to be true.
In politics, Vice President Harris, Speaker Pelosi and others proved that with their protestations over his “attempted lynching.” In the media, not only his story but questioning of his story were cited as evidence of a viciously racist society. Now, in his latest performance, Smollett hopes to convince jurors that he may not be innocent, but he should not be found guilty. The question is whether jurors, like some journalists, will see the same “beauty” in Jussie Smollett’s tall tale.
Tags
Who is online
107 visitors
As we learned in the Simpson trial, certain juries can't be trusted.
Smollett is still playing to his audience. He knows reality is not what is true but what an audience wants to be true.
The defense argument is an assault on reality. Cases don't come much more clear cut than this.
Maybe Michelle Obama will call the foreman of the jury?
Or maybe Don Lemon will tip Smollett off again.
Don is having trouble defending himself because he can’t keep his hands out of strangers pants. He may not have the time.
What is CNN going to do if they have to drop Lemon too?
Did he cross a line?
CNN’s viewership is so low right now they could put a stuffed animal in the chair and nobody would notice.
We will see what happens with Don soon enough.
I recall when they had those funny sidebar conversations between Cuomo and Lemon. They used to laugh at the American people.
I think we are getting the last laugh now.
Prosecutors built their case over testimony last week by presenting surveillance camera footage, ride-share receipts and numerous text and phone messages between Mr. Smollett and Abimbola Osundairo on the night of the alleged attack.
In one text presented at the trial, Mr. Smollett reached out to Abimbola Osundairo days before the alleged attack, saying: “Might need your help on the low. You around to meet up and talk face to face?”
The prosecution held up as key evidence a check that Mr. Smollett wrote to Abimbola Osundairo for $3,500 just before the alleged attack and that the brothers split between themselves. They said they assumed it was for help staging the alleged attack. Mr. Smollett said the check was for Abimbola Osundairo’s personal-training services and for the purchase of a steroid, illegal in the U.S., which Mr. Osundairo allegedly said he could get for Mr. Smollett.
On cross examination, Mr. Webb suggested that Mr. Smollett refused to turn over his cellphone, a DNA sample or his medical records because they would show that his injuries weren’t serious and that he had extensive contacts with Mr. Osundairo.
“ My injuries were real, ” Mr. Smollett said in response.
Did you see this?
It been all over Fox News.
Don Lemon warned him that the Chicago PD didn't believe him.
Let me send another one over:
"A Wednesday Fox Business segment labeled Jussie Smollett's exoneration a "travesty of justice" and sought to confirm conspiracy theories Michelle Obama called in "favors" to get his charges dropped by Cook County prosecutors.
Fox Business host Stuart Varney opened his Tuesday segment declaring "the influence and power of liberal elites" was on full display in Chicago this week as Illinois prosecutors waived 16 charges against the Empire star. Self-proclaimed libertarian and Sean Hannity correspondent Lawrence Jones III touted unfounded and baseless claims former First Lady Michelle Obama "made some phone calls" to have the charges dropped in order to distract Americans from the disclosure of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation into President Donald Trump."
If the Don Lemon story is true he wasted his time because EVERYONE knew, knows Smollett was lying. Just looking at the interview he gave on GMA a person with common sense could tell the story didn't add up. Flies in from NY, is hungry, it's 2am you pick up Subway and you get jumped by MAGA folks? You don't get robbed, stabbed, instead you get a bolo tie placed around your neck. Cocaine's a helluva drug...
Though there are a LOT of MAGA Trumpers in IL and Chicago area it is doubtful they would be out at 2am stalking Subway sandwich shop goers.