Jim Dey: Chicago's hate-crime hoax case just keeps on going

Apr. 7—This is a story about a criminal case that won't die. It features a celebrity, typical Chicago insider-dealing and a very important legal Latin phrase —

They are key ingredients in the long-running legal controversy involving "Empire" television series actor Jussie Smollett.

In 2019, he thought he could re-energize his career by telling police that he was the victim of a hate crime perpetrated by Donald Trump supporters.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently announced that it would review Smollett's appeal of his conviction for felony disorderly conduct.

But that barely scratches the surface of Smollett's bizarre hate-crime hoax in which he quickly morphed from heroic victim into despicable fraud.

Here are the relevant details:

On Jan. 29, 2019, Smollett told police he was assaulted by gay-bashing Trump supporters. He said he emerged unscathed by fighting off his attackers with one hand while holding an undamaged sandwich in the other.

The national and Chicago news media initially swallowed the story whole — coast-to-coast headlines accompanied by hang-wringing denunciations of hate by all the best people.

Harried Chicago detectives went into overdrive in their search for the perpetrators. But they soon discovered Smollett's story didn't add up, and they located two Smollett acquaintances who said he had hired them to stage a fake assault.

Smollett, now 41, was indicted and arraigned on March 14, 2019.

That's when Chicago's traditional deal-making for the rich and/or connected went into high gear. It culminated 12 days later. Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx's office dismissed the charges against Smollett. In exchange, he forfeited his $10,000 bond.

Officially, Foxx filed a motion to (dismiss) the charges.

From both her point of view and Smollett's, the case was over. Who, after all, could — or would — undo their handiwork in which Smollett got a pass and Foxx got a ton of bad publicity?

What happened next spoiled everything.

Former appellate court Justice Sheila O'Brien, outraged by Smollett's special treatment, filed a motion for appointment of a special prosecutor. Ultimately, high-powered Chicago lawyer Dan Webb was named to review both the Smollett case and the actions of Foxx's office.

Webb obtained an indictment against Smollett and won a conviction when the case went to trial. Smollett was sentenced to probation, ordered to serve 150 days in jail and pay a $25,000 fine and $120,106 in restitution to cover police overtime costs.

In December, a state appeals court affirmed Smollett's conviction by a 2-1 vote. His case again appeared to be over.

But the state's seven-member high court resurrected it March 27 when it agreed to hear Smollett's appeal.

What's the issue?

Smollett lawyers argue Foxx's decision to dismiss the case should be interpreted as officially ending it, that her motion was tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice that bars further action. They contend the later prosecution breached an inviolable agreement between Smollett and Foxx.

Webb counters that established law clearly states that a dismissal of criminal charges is never final and always leaves the possibility of reopening the case if subsequent events justify it.

He argued that in this case — to the shock and chagrin of Foxx and Smollett — a lightning bolt in the form of O'Brien's special prosecutor motion changed the legal dynamics.

But did it? The Illinois Supreme Court accepts only a small percentage of the cases it's asked to review.

Does it intend to put its official stamp of legal approval on an arrangement that confirms all the public's worst suspicions about who counts and who doesn't?

Could be. Illinois didn't get its tawdry reputation for nothing.