Jussie Smollett was sentenced to 150 days imprisonment for lying to the police about a racist and homophobic attack

In December, the former "Empire” star was found guilty of five counts each of felony disorderly behavior.

11 March 2022 Friday 10:37
188 Reads
Jussie Smollett was sentenced to 150 days imprisonment for lying to the police about a racist and homophobic attack

Jussie Smollett, an actor in trouble, was sentenced on Thursday to 150 days imprisonment and 30 months probation for reporting to police that he had been the victim of a racist attack and homophobic attack in 2019.

Smollett was told by Judge James Linn, "You're just an acharlatan pretending that you are a victim of hate crime," as he announced the sentence.

Smollett repeatedly shouted "I'm not suicidal!" in response to the sentence. In court

A Chicago jury found him guilty in December of five counts for felony disorderly behavior. The sixth charge of aggravated Battery was not brought against him.

These charges were based on a January 2019 report where Smollett (Black and Gay) claimed that he was brutally attacked in Chicago's Streeterville neighbourhood.

According to the actor, two men kicked and punched him and used homophobic and racist slurs. They also threw chemical in his face and tied a noose around their neck.

A police investigation led to the arrests Olabingo Osundairo, his brother Abimbola and their accomplices in the "Empire" set.

After being released, Smollett was taken into custody on February 21, 2019. He was accused of recruiting the brothers for the attack.

The police claimed that Smollett orchestrated the phony event to further his career. This claim was denied by the actor.

Smollett's legal teams had demanded a new trial or not guilty verdict . They claimed that Smollett's constitutional rights were violated by the court's inability to allow his lawyers to actively participate in the jury selection process.

The team stated in court documents that the court made "numerous trial errors" leading up to and during trial pendency.

His lawyers claimed that they weren't allowed to ask questions about potential jurors. This prevented them from uncovering any biases or "questionable impartiality," given that the case was high-profile.


 

Comments

Warning!

You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up