CHICAGO _ Moments after "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett pleaded not guilty to bombshell charges of staging a hate crime on himself, Cook County prosecutors were already looking to cut a deal, the actor's attorneys say.
After the brief March 14 arraignment, as reporters and spectators filed out of the courtroom, Smollett's attorneys say the assistant state's attorney handling the hot-button case asked them: What can we do to help this case go away?
That signal sparked a week and a half of behind-the-scenes negotiations, ending with the stunning decision by State's Attorney Kim Foxx's office to drop all 16 counts of disorderly conduct against Smollett _ a move that sparked outrage and calls for Foxx to resign.
With the fallout from the Smollett case continuing unabated, the Chicago Tribune attempted to piece together what led to such an abrupt dismissal of a case that had garnered international interest.
Foxx's office has denied multiple requests by the Chicago Tribune to interview the lead prosecutor, who made the decision to drop the charges, or Foxx's top deputy, who signed off on the deal. The central question _ why prosecutors made the about-face _ largely remains a mystery.
Meanwhile, Foxx, who had informally "recused" herself from the case due to a conflict, has faced mounting pressure to explain in more detail why the prosecution of Smollett was so quickly abandoned. In an op-ed in the Tribune, she backed off her office's initial stance that the case was strong, writing that they were uncertain of a conviction, but she offered no specifics.
At a news conference Saturday, Foxx declined to talk about "the substance of the case," saying the matter is "continuing to be reviewed by others" _ but she did not say by whom.
But for the first time, Smollett's attorneys have provided their account of how the case concluded, saying in interviews with the Tribune that they'd rejected early offers of a deferred prosecution and insisted instead on a full dismissal. The defense team _ which includes Los Angeles-based celebrity attorney Mark Geragos _ blasted the case as weak while acknowledging they had been given only a sliver of the evidence gathered by Chicago police.
Smollett's lawyers said they emphasized in talks with Foxx's subordinates that the case hinged on questionable testimony by two brothers who told police that Smollett had paid them to stage the Jan. 29 attack. They also hammered on public statements made by police Superintendent Eddie Johnson that they believed were inconsistent with evidence that prosecutors later presented in court.
On Friday, though, Johnson told the Tribune he did "nothing unusual" in holding a news conference to detail a high-profile investigation, defending everything he said as based on evidence he still considers rock-solid.
"There was nothing that I personally interjected into my comments," Johnson said.
With the reason behind the dismissal still a mystery, the controversy has continued to rage. Last week, the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police staged a protest outside Foxx's Loop offices calling on her to resign, and a suburban police chief association issued a "no confidence" letter attacking her lenient approach to prosecuting low-level crimes. Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot also weighed in, saying Foxx owed Chicago a more "fulsome" explanation of her office's actions.
On the legal front, two separate petitions _ one from a former prosecutor in Foxx's office and another from a retired Illinois appellate judge _ were filed last week calling for a special prosecutor to investigate how the Smollett case was handled and whether the actor could be re-charged.
Patricia Brown Holmes, Smollett's lead Chicago attorney, told the Tribune in an interview that as the point person handling the negotiations, she tried to make it clear to Foxx's office that it would be embarrassed if prosecutors took the case to trial and lost.
"What I walked them through was the legality (of the investigation)," Holmes said at her downtown law office. "Whether they believe he's guilty or not, your case is crap. You can't sustain your burden (of) proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
