Jussie Smollett Trial: The American Jury System Holds Firm against ‘Wokeness’

Asked to describe the discussions that yielded five “guilty” verdicts in the trial of Jussie Smollett, the sole juror to have broken her silence had a rather banal tale to tell. “The jury of six women and six men,” the Daily Beast reported, “didn’t have any major disagreements but took nine hours to deliberate because they wanted to properly consider all the evidence.” “We went in there with an open mind. I listened to both sides. We wanted to make sure that those who had doubts didn’t feel pressured,” the juror said. And that short delay before the unanimous conclusions were reached? That happened, according to the Beast, because the jury “just wanted more time to look over all the evidence again.”

You will have noticed, I hope, what this juror’s account lacks. It does not, at any point, mention Smollett’s race, sexual orientation, or work on network TV. It does not, at any point, inquire as to his pronouns or his politics or his tax bracket. And it does not, at any point, try to set the case within the broad sweep of American history. The headline on the Beast’s piece reads, “Juror Explains What Sealed Jussie Smollett’s Fate for Them,” and the truth, refreshingly enough, seems to be that Smollett’s fate was sealed by the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The jury “wanted to properly consider all the evidence”; hoped to ensure “that prosecutors had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt”; asked for “more time to look over all the evidence again”; “found testimony from the brothers hired to attack Smollett to be more convincing”; and, eventually, “felt [Smollett’s] answers didn’t have credible reasoning, especially when there was zero evidence to back up his story.”

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Jussie Smollett

Woke

Asked to describe the discussions that yielded five “guilty” verdicts in the trial of Jussie Smollett, the sole juror to have broken her silence had a rather banal tale to tell. “The jury of six women and six men,” the Daily Beast reported, “didn’t have any major disagreements but took nine hours to deliberate because they wanted to properly consider all the evidence.” “We went in there with an open mind. I listened to both sides. We wanted to make sure that those who had doubts didn’t feel pressured,” the juror said. And that short delay before the unanimous conclusions were reached? That happened, according to the Beast, because the jury “just wanted more time to look over all the evidence again.”

You will have noticed, I hope, what this juror’s account lacks. It does not, at any point, mention Smollett’s race, sexual orientation, or work on network TV. It does not, at any point, inquire as to his pronouns or his politics or his tax bracket. And it does not, at any point, try to set the case within the broad sweep of American history. The headline on the Beast’s piece reads, “Juror Explains What Sealed Jussie Smollett’s Fate for Them,” and the truth, refreshingly enough, seems to be that Smollett’s fate was sealed by the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The jury “wanted to properly consider all the evidence”; hoped to ensure “that prosecutors had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt”; asked for “more time to look over all the evidence again”; “found testimony from the brothers hired to attack Smollett to be more convincing”; and, eventually, “felt [Smollett’s] answers didn’t have credible reasoning, especially when there was zero evidence to back up his story.”