Jussie Smollett was found guilty by a jury. This is an opinion column. So . . . my opinion is that it's an unambiguously good thing. What, though, if the verdict had gone the other way? What if Smollett had been acquitted despite the overwhelming sentiment across America that he had gotten away with what he so inexcusably did?
Simply, virtually everyone now recognizes that Jussie Smollett is guilty — he deliberated set about creating a false narrative to publicly say that he was victim of a racist, homophobic attack. And his purpose was to somehow advance an arguably faltering career.
Will there be consequences to him for his crimes? For sure. He is already a laughingstock among those outside the dwindling number of progressives that still support him as having been falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Will the others who supported him when he first concocted his complaint — including the then-future president of the United States — turn on him? Maybe. Maybe not. Will he go to jail (as he probably should)? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the progressives still loyal to Smollett — maybe because they themselves have been victims of racism or homophobia — somehow help persuade the judge that he has already suffered enough. Who knows?
Worth considering, though is the impact on others — both potential victims of such assaults and potential offenders. And in that vein, more worth considering is the impact on society if Smollett had instead been acquitted. What if Smollett had been acquitted despite the fact that most sentient people, on either the left or the right, who have followed this story now, without microphones in their faces, accept the reality that "he did it"? That is, that the jury, for some inarticulable reason — maybe race, empathy with Blacks or homosexuals, or both, or because they simply detest the Chicago police or then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel — simply refused to convict.
At bottom, members of the public might conclude, looking at a Smollett acquittal, that his conduct was simply acceptable. Or that the authorities will invariably decline to act if Smollett's false police report of having been victimized is replicated. Unquestionably, some Smollett copycats would be more inclined to create their own cock and bull stories had he been acquitted.
More important, though, is the impact that an acquittal might have had on those who are genuinely attacked. The police or prosecutors might see their legitimate complaints as less credible, or likely less credible to a jury. This is a reasonable concern whenever law enforcement goes to bat with a difficult case that attracts public attention — Jussie Smollett, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell.
Undoubtedly prosecutors must take into account the risk of losing their case whenever they charge any defendant. Not the only thing to worry about. Further concern, if the prosecutors fail to convict, is that the next victim might simply not come forward in the face of a prior acquittal that drew immense public attention. Thus, a two-fold concern. First, they may lose the case. Second, the next victim won't come forward: the acquittal there may be seen as an influencer for the next case. That is, "if this jury didn't believe the victim, I won't be believed either." Not to mention that some commentators, particularly on the right, might argue especially in the face of an acquittal that today's prosecutors, particularly in big cities, are too willing to accept the story of every "victim" who surfaces, thus discouraging some.
This is hardly intended to suggest that prosecutors should stand down in difficult cases. The far larger problem is not with prosecutors too gun shy next time around because of a prior loss by their office. Nor about future jurors following a prosecutor's misfire in an earlier case in the media. The main problem is with true victims who don't want to be "victimized again" by seemingly skeptical police detectives and prosecutors who, in light of Smollett's false claims, become too questioning in ensuring that they separate the chaff allegations from the wheat.
You bet that an acquittal can have great impact way after it is reached. And even though Smollett has been convicted, he has done more damage than he thinks or cares about, as demonstrated by the ease with which he continues to protest his innocence.
There will indeed be an afterlife for the Smollett case given what preceded the conviction, that includes State's Attorney Kimm Fox's willingness to take a dive before legitimate protocols prevailed in reversing her decision to give him a slap on the wrist. One can just imagine how much worse it might be for future actual victims had Smollett been acquitted.
Yes, a jury verdict may continue to have an existence way beyond what happens to a defendant about whom a jury has just reached its verdict.
Originally published in MEDIUM, December 21, 2021
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
