A juror in the Jussie Smollett trial explained several reasons why a jury feels there is no way the star actor can be acquitted in his filthy trial for allegedly launching a fake hate attack on himself.
The juror, who declined to be named, told Chicago Sun Times That the jury of six women and six men had no major disagreements but took nine hours to deliberate because they wanted to properly consider all the evidence.
She said that some doubted that the plaintiffs had established their case beyond reasonable doubt when the deliberations began. But these people wanted more time to look at all the evidence again.
“It wasn’t divided equally,” she said, “but there were some skeptics.”
Smollett was convicted Thursday night of five of six counts of disorderly conduct related to filing a false battery report to the police and a false police report of a hate crime in January 2019. He pleaded not guilty to one count of telling the detective two weeks later that he was the victim of an aggravated battery.
Smollett – an openly gay black actor who for nearly three years denied accusations that he hired two brothers as attackers in the alleged attack – testified on his behalf during the week-long trial.
But the juror said they felt his answers did not have reasonable logic, especially when there is no evidence to support his story.
Smollett’s creative director Frank Gatson, who initially called the police in 2019, was listed as a witness to testify but was never called.
“We all wanted to hear from Frank,” the juror said.
In the end, the juror said they found the testimony of the two brothers who were set to attack Smollett to be more convincing. Abimbola and Olabingo Osondaero provide compelling testimony that Smollett had paid them to carry out the task of undermining him and inserting a noose around his neck after immersing him in bleach. They also claimed that Smollett had walked them through a “dry run” days earlier.
Rubbing the wound with salt, the juror said Smollett’s defense attorney Nene Uchi appeared to be “shooting in the groin” as he approached trial. He made unsubstantiated allegations that didn’t fit with the jury, such as the claim that the Osondaero brothers wanted to pay Smollett $2 million to change their story.
By contrast, Prosecutor Dan Webb had a “methodical, lumbering” style that made his argument seem too narrow, the juror said.
Uchi said she would appeal due to the jury’s “inconsistent” ruling. “You can’t say Josie wasn’t lying about the exact same incident,” she said in a statement.
But the juror explained why they were guilty of only four or five counts.
“We were told it was a tight battery because of [Smollett] The juror said they were wearing a mask. But “in all [of Smollett’s] Narratives of what happened, he mentioned a mask. ”
She added, “I hope so [Smollett and his attorneys] I know we went there with an open mind. I have listened to both sides. We wanted to make sure that those who had doubts don’t feel pressured.”