Chicago sues 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett over costs of police work despite dismissal of charges

[former9thward]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Outgoing Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration says it went to court Thursday to try to force Jussie Smollett to pay Chicago back for an alleged hate crime hoax even though Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against the “Empire” actor.

The lawsuit, filed in Circuit Court, comes after Smollett failed to pony up for the costs of the police investigation by a deadline imposed by the city. The city said he owes $130,106 — the cost of the police overtime hours expended in the investigation into his allegations.

The upcoming battle in civil court promises in many ways to mirror the criminal charges against Smollett that were abruptly dismissed by prosecutors last month. Both center on the same question: Did Smollett stage a physical assault on himself, claiming his attackers shouted racial and homophobic slurs?

Celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, who represents Smollett, has previously vowed a vigorous defense, warning that Emanuel, police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and other key players would be required to give sworn testimony.

Read more: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-city-lawsuit-20190409-story.html

---

While it is true officials of the city will have to give sworn testimony -- so will Jussie Smollett. To date he has not given any sworn statements.

[Igel]

1. The claim is that's just the overtime.

Not all the resources used.

I wonder what the bill *could* have come up to, given the celebrity of the case?

[azureblue]

32. sore losers

is what it boils down to. The CPD was so sure he was guilty of something, but the case fell apart on charges were dismissed. SO the CPD wants to try to find something to penalize him with. Unlike the OJ case, where a private person sued OJ, this is the CPD, so they will have to prove their case. And since the charges were dismissed, then they will have to explain in court why they think the CPD is in the position of pressing charges. No matter how they try to dance around it, that is what they are doing. they didn't like the verdict, so they are stepping around it with this suit.

The CPD now has a huge problem: they better win this. Because, if they don't the slapback will be a monster: Not only will they get sued for attorney and court costs, they will be sued for harassment plus punitive. And there will be not a few who will see this as a racial or homophobic thing.

The CPD went ahead with an "we'll show him" attitude, but instead, they have got a tiger by teh tail and they have no one to blame but themselves. Maybe he was guilty, but the AG dismissed charges, and that is enough in a court of law to show there was not enough evidence for a conviction. When the CPD goes to court with this, the judge will ask them why do they think they know more than the AG, and if so, why didn't they present that evidence to the AG in the first place? Yes, they can get him to testify, but he already has testified in interviews and he has no obligation to say anything beyond that - IOW he can claim the CPD is retrying the case. Oops.

[brooklynite]

33. Are you saying that the default position is "the States Attorney knows better"?

I don't think that'll be a compelling argument.

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. Yeah. I don't get it. If the police think they have enough evidence...why didn't the AG?

Or at least wait until any civil suit is brought and won. Then use that victory as evidence to sue. There's no rush is there?

It would be interesting to see the specifics of exactly what and why the AG declined to prosecute. If the police are so angry and dead set that he is guilty, that they have found enough to convince themselves of it, why wouldn't the AG go ahead? Even IF they ended up losing the case, they'd be no better off. The bulk of the money would have been spent on the investigaion already so why not go ahead? That is what is puzzling about this suit. Unless the police actually can sue for these costs even against someone they only suspect of a crime. If that's the case......yikes!

[jberryhill]

2. "The upcoming battle in civil court..." also won't happen

On a $130k claim, they should easily take $80k and call it a day.

Given that there’s no way Smollet wants to testify (which he has to do, unlike a criminal proceeding) they can probably get him to pay close to the ful amount.

People have funny ideas about how lawsuits work. Nobody sane is going to go to trial over this.

[unblock]

3. That's in no small part because lawsuits work in funny ways

People like to think such things get resolved based on the merits of the case and the relevant law, and while that certainly is a big factor, so are other things like time and legal expenses, evidence that might come out that may be embarrassing, public image or ancillary relationships, etc.

Sometimes it's all about what's fair and right and just; other times it's all about who is in a better negotiating position and is better at using the civil court system as a weapon.

[AKing]

15. Sane people don't fake hate crimes.

[jberryhill]

17. Sane people do all kinds of things.

Aside from which, it doesn’t matter much for civil liability.

Some notable “sane” people: Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gary. Every one of them “sane”.

[Honeycombe8]

4. He should pay for the cost. I read not that long ago that someone else had to pay restitution....

for the costs involved in filing a false claim. I think it was a woman?

[bitterross]

6. Perhaps she did. Was she convicted/pled guilty to that?

If she were convicted or pled guilty it wouldn't be odd at all for part of her to have to pay restitution. That's rather common.

Mr. Smollett has not been found guilty nor pled guilty to anything.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Easier, actually.

The city only has to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he filed a false claim. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. (But I think he admitted it, didn't he?)

[jberryhill]

11. In all likelihood, he'll just pay it

Defending the civil proceeding can cost nearly as much.

[bitterross]

5. How is he liable? This sets a bad standard.

First, he's not been convicted of anything. So, why is the city suing someone who has not been found guilty? Are they going to start doing this for every criminal trial they lose?

They're going to have to try the man in civil court on the same evidence that the criminal prosecutor decided wasn't enough to get a conviction. I understand the burden in civil court is lower than the burden in criminal court. So there is a possibility they could win there when the DA could not.

This just sets a bad precedent. It reeks of acting like a Republican. They are such sore losers they would do such a thing out of spite and vengeance. Are we going to start trying everyone in civil court now when we lose in criminal proceedings? That's the standard they're setting.

I have no idea whether the guy is guilty or not. I just don't like this overall.

[forgotmylogin]

8. A Hollywood Actor reporting a hate crime that didn't happen is fraud.

They incurred costs they would not have had to pay if he hadn't lied. They're not asking for punitive damages, just the cost of what they spent to work on his politically and socially high-profile case.

[bitterross]

12. No one has proved he lied.

No one has proved the man lied.

[forgotmylogin]

16. I don't intend to argue...

But this would seem to be a separate lawsuit about damages regardless of who did or didn't lie. They're not suing for 250 million dollars or something stupid.

One needn't be convicted of anything to be sued civilly.

[jberryhill]

18. Uh, perhaps you missed the point here

They filed suit. Yes, they intend to prove that, more likely than not, he lied.

If so, he will owe them the money.

[Honeycombe8]

9. This is an unusual case. It's one of someone doing something that costs the city.

It cost the city in time and money. Caused by a person's intentional, fraudulent actions. It's not dependent on having been proven guilty in a court of law.

I don't know if he admitted guilt or not, but he gave up the $10,000 bond in return for dropping the charges (about 17 felony charges).

A Grand Jury returned indictments, based in large part, no doubt, on Smollett's testimony.

The state made a deal w/Smollett's lawyers, then immediately sealed the case. Very unusual. Looks like he was treated specially because of his celebrity status.

The city says his alleged false reports cost the city $130,000. I hope they get a judgment against him for it. This was a very serious thing he did.

[bitterross]

14. How do you know what he did?

You said "This was a very serious thing he did."

Do you have some proof he lied? Do you have access to the grand jury documents?

No, you don't. You have an opinion that he lied. That's not good enough.

[jberryhill]

21. Good enough for what?

Yah, those two brothers are really racist Trump supporters. C’mon.

Aside from which the point seems to have escaped you that the city has filed a civil suit. If he would like to show that he didn’t do it, he can certainly take the opportunity to do so.

[jberryhill]

10. He doesn't have to be found guilty of a crime

OJ was acquitted on a murder charge, but still found civilly liable for wrongful death.

How can he be liable? Well, by it being proven in a civil proceeding that, more likely than not, he falsely reported a crime. That’s not even the same standard of proof.

[JonLP24]

26. He wasn't sued for the costs of the investigation

[jberryhill]

27. What are you talking about?

That’s exactly what he’s being sued for.

If you are talking about OJ, no, he was not sued for the cost of the police investigation. So what? He was sued for the wrongful deaths of the two victims.

[JonLP24]

29. That isn't what OJ was sued for

I know exactly what OJ was sued for. Smollett is the first case ever I heard of someone reimbursing the costs of the investigation.

I'll let someone else explain what I'm talking about.

"Nooooo..... OJ was held civilly liable for wrongful death, the civil version of murder. Not for wasting police resources. As everyone else was saying, it’s not like the city sues cops for the millions they cost in wrongful death lawsuits.

Hell, we don’t charge people for using police resources when they actually commit violent crimes. If Jussie was actually a victim here, do you think the assailants would get charged for the investigation? Just imagine!!!!"

From the comments section of this

https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/the-petty-continues-city-of-chicago-says-it-will-sue-j-1833832041

This part is not meant as a direct reply but I don't really care for Rahm Emmanuel's obsession over this when he covered up a police shooting.

----

How Rahm Emanuel Blew It on Police Reform

On September 6, just days after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced he will not run for a third term, his office released a statement reporting that the city finalized its consent decree—the city’s agreement with the federal government to institute a sweeping compendium of court-enforced reforms in its embattled police department.

That same day, Chicago news outlets reported that Emanuel had acquiesced to a provision requiring officers to radio in to a dispatcher every time they pointed a gun at somebody. Until this week, Emanuel was against that and other critical reforms that would make police activities more transparent to the public. He welcomed this last reform only after announcing that he wasn’t running for reelection.

While history will note Emanuel as the mayor at the dawn of a new era of police reform in Chicago, he will likely get none of the glory. Rather, he’ll be known as the leader whose decisions in one particularly egregious case of police brutality brought Chicagoans’ relationship with city law enforcement to a breaking point. That case is the killing of the African American teenager Laquan McDonald by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke in 2015. Emanuel’s unforced errors in handling that case devastated Chicago families and blemished his mayoral legacy. He failed to take his own advice by letting the serious crisis of police misconduct go to waste. The question is whether there’s anything he can do now to change that.

The growing movement for police reform
Emanuel had the opportunity to do something truly transformative about Chicago police corruption—a well-documented problem that festered for decades before he became mayor, often under the protection of City Hall. The passionate and determined Black Lives Matter movement was seeded and sprouted during Emanuel’s first term (2011 to 2015). Fueled by numerous shocking accounts of police killings of African Americans around the U.S. that were going unpunished, the BLM network made accountability for police violence its flagship issue.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/how-rahm-emanuel-blew-it-on-police-reform/569323/

[jberryhill]

30. What an odd digression

One need not be found guilty of a crime in order to be found liable in a civil action arising from the same crime.

It doesn’t matter that OJ wasn’t sued by the LAPD. The general principle is that one can be sued for the consequences of a crime, regardless of whether one has been convicted of that crime.

The rest of your digression is not relevant to that point.

[JonLP24]

31. I know someone can be sued for a crime they were found not guilty obviously

Since we are talking about OJ. I think we are misunderstanding each other if you're telling me stuff I already know. I just never heard of someone being sued for the costs of an investigation.

It was Rahm Emmanuel who first ordered the deadline for Jessie Smollett to pay back. I bring up Rahm Emmanuel because he is very relevant.

[clementine613]

35. The comparison to OJ is fallacious.

In the Simpson case, there was an actual crime. Two people were murdered. The police had to investigate to find out who did it, whether it was Simpson or someone else.

In the Smollett case, there was no crime. The police did not have to investigate anything until Smollett made his claim.

[jberryhill]

36. "In the Smollett case, there was no crime"

Ummmm..... the city alleges that there was a crime - i.e. false reporting.

The city can sue him for the costs of his having done that.

They will need to show that (a) it is more likely than not that Smollet committed the crime of false reporting, and (b) that they expended $XXX in additional costs above and beyond ordinary policing as a consequence directly attributable to his crime.

You seem to miss the point that if Smollet falsely reported a crime, then yes a crime was indeed committed by Smollet. That will be one of the things the city will have to show at trial to be more likely than not.

[clementine613]

38. I think you misunderstood my point.

The people above were asking why Smollett has to pay while OJ didn't.

The reason is because by OJ, there was a murder. The police were obligated to investigate, whether the crime was committed by Simpson or someone else. The police didn't waste time/resources on a crime that didn't exist.

By Smollett, however, there was no crime. If he didn't report it, the police would not have spent time and resources to investigate the "attack."

My point was that it was fallacious to say that because OJ wasn't required to pay for the investigation that Smollett should also be off the hook. I was not saying that Smollett's reporting of the "crime" was not a crime in and of itself.

[jberryhill]

39. Oh, okay...

I was going for the broader point that civil liability for (whatever) doesn’t depend on whether anyone was charged or convicted of a crime.

That said, a lot of states tack on a bunch of fines and assessments on top of criminal convictions.

[Devil Child]

13. Chicago should sue States Attorney Kim Foxx

She’s the one who prevented Smolett from being held accountable in dismissing 16 felonies.

[jberryhill]

19. Not at all

Even if she had gone forward with the case, that wouldn’t get Chicago paid.

[Pisces]

20. Good, he should pay

[angrychair]

22. All this BS from ppl about smollett

Rahm and everyone else cared half as much about all the gun violence in Chicago as they do about Smollett they could actually save some lives.

[Baltimike]

23. those resources were diverted from there to work his fake case.

Not that he should beat himself up about it or anything...

[ripcord]

24. There is a very simple reason for this lawsuit

Remember it was the State's Attorney who dismissed the charges and that very seriously pissed off many in the Chicago's city government. This is just a way to get this case in front of a judge, Smollett can either pay up or the case will play out in civil court where it is easier for the City to makes its case, my bet is he pays up all the while insisting that it doesn't imply guilt.

[JonLP24]

25. This is ridiculous

I never heard of a lawsuit of an investigation that didn't result in charges. Mueller should sue Trump for the costs of the investigation.

[exboyfil]

28. You know something

There is a lot of similarity in the two cases. Powerful/connected individuals using their position to be treated differently than the unwashed masses. At a minimum the prosecutor should have sold the withdrawal of charges to the police or at least notified them of his reasoning before acting. A brief detailing how other cases were handled in the past would also have been useful.

Also Foxx should have never taken the call from Smollet's family.

Because of this unilateral decision, this crap will just go on and on forever.

I never heard of Smollet before this case, and I hope to never hear about him again.

[Blue_Tires]

34. Dumb...

This whole lawsuit charade is going to cost the taxpayers more than the sum they're trying to recoup.