Thread by @DanielRAlonso

Unless we learn anything else about #JussieSmollett, here are some final thoughts, in no particular order:
1.Some have suggested that bc of the "MAGA" nature of alleged hoax, anti-Trump people should be pro-Smollett. That's nonsense. Crim cases stand & fall on their own merits./1

Other than the need to explain decisions in matters of great public importance, political considerations have no place in criminal prosecutions. You can be anti-Trump & believe that #Smollett committed crimes. /2

2. The prosecutor here, whether that's Joe Magats or Kim Foxx, needs to explain the decision. That's pretty basic, and the justifications offered thus far make little sense. /3
nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-ope…

3. Magats said that the decision to dismiss the charges--which was done with no notice to the police and differently than the way other indictments are dismissed in Cook County--was consistent with justice.... /4

.... It's very possible that a lenient disposition was the right thing in this case. Looking at the facts, I can imagine a plea to something reduced like a misdemeanor, full restitution, and an admission of guilt. I can even imagine.... /5

.... a deferred prosecution agreement, where the charges are dropped after a period of time where the D stays out of trouble and does community service. All negotiated with his lawyers as part of a carefully-devised disposition. /6

But barring some problem with the case evidence, which Magats has denied, a precipitous dismissal with sealing and no admission to the facts is far outside of what a reasonable prosecutor would do in these circumstances. It's really hard to imagine from a veteran prosecutor. /7

4. So, the question is whether a veteran prosecutor (Magats) was simply negligent in reaching this dispo, or something else is going on. I don't speculate, so I won't.... /8

.... 5. But the circumstances of the Foxx recusal add to the oddness of the disposition. Even if she texted about the case w a political figure, that alone shouldn't cause recusal. /9

Complicating the recusal analysis is that "Foxx 'did not formally recuse herself or the Office based on any actual conflict of interest. As a result, she did not have to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor.'" According to a spox. /10
bit.ly/2HX3n8K

So it seems that Foxx claimed recusal but still maintained the legal ability to decide the case. Again, I won't speculate. But she should answer questions about this. /11

Foxx's recusal was unusual *both* because it doesn't apparently rise to the level of the types of recusals that typically are necessary for prosecutors *and* bc it's so different from her past recusals. /12

https://twitter.com/DanielRAlonso/status/1110641216813703169?s=20

6. Finally, there's a question as to whether Foxx's embrace of the progressive prosecutor movement is relevant to the office's decision. That movement has a lot going for it and in many ways should be applauded (cc @Krinskymak). /13

But I at least wonder if the imperative to decarcerate pushed the office to simply stop caring about anything non-violent. My evidence at this point is Magats's explanation to the @nytimes: /14

“We work to prioritize violent crime and the drivers of violent crime,” Mr. Magats said. “I don’t see Jussie Smollett as a threat to public safety.” /15

Prioritizing violent crime is correct, and sure, #Smollett is not a threat to public safety narrowly defined. But precedent Magats sets is extremely troubling, as its logical conclusion is that non-violent cases should all be dismissed after indictment./16

https://twitter.com/DanielRAlonso/status/1110629920345149441?s=20

I really hope that progressive prosecution does not mean this. Frankly, if it means anything, it means having a transparent criminal justice system that is fair to everyone. This case is not consistent with that ideal. /17

As I said, these are final thoughts barring some new development. On to other things. /18