Do Jussie Smollett’s accomplices/the Osundairo brothers get to keep the $3,500?
I realize that was a play on Jessie’s Girl, but that phrasing probably isn’t going to go well…
Di they even commit a crime? I believe they can keep the money.
Everything Jussie did after they roughed him up and yelled at him was the issue. They had a small, privatey secured acting gig, more or less.
.
Well, they played along with the charade
Could it count as conspiracy to commit fraud? If Jussie’s plan was to use the incident as a publicity stunt with the intent of getting a higher salary than he was getting
The prosecution wants friendly witnesses that can be relied on during testimony.
Seems like taking their hard earned acting money would be counter productive.
Have they been given immunity for cooperating? That may include keeping the money they earned.
In order to commit fraud you have to either take something from someone or prevent them from getting something to which they are entitled. If Smollet fundraised or received anything as a result of his attack then it could apply. I have not heard that he did so.
They could be charged with obstruction of justice if they lied to the police but the only crime before the investigation was filing a false police report and there is not a crime called conspiring to file a false police report.
The brothers will probably get to keep the money.
Their showbiz career is likely over though. 
As Aspidistra noted, they participated in the hoax/fraud for financial gain, but were not part of the filing of the false police report (which is what Jussie is being charged with).
And while they are cooperating with the investigation, I’ve read that they have not been offered immunity from prosecution. Although I’m having a hard time figuring out what they could potentially be charged with…
In Illinois there is a blanket law covering conspiracy to commit any felony or misdemeanor. Jussie was charged with a Class 4 felony.
Criminal Code §720 ILCS 5/8-2
Also, did they actually injure Jussie? I thought it was illegal to commit a crime, even if you had the “victim’s” permission. I can’t just go beat someone up and then claim he said it was okay.
Iirc, his “injuries” were said to be self-inflicted. Anyway, doesn’t assault and battery require a mens rea? I could accidently bump into someone and injure them, but does that make me criminally liable?
Well if the mens rea is technically that the defendant must have *intended *to use force, then the brothers would be guilty since they did it intentionally…although it was for fraudulent purposes. Police did say that Jussie’s facial scratches were self inflicted, but they also said that if the camera had been pointing in the right direction, it would have shown the brothers ‘jumping’ Jussie & him fighting back. Apparently he told them to use force, but not hurt him too bad.
But I think it’s a gray area as to whether they actually committed a crime. If so, I’d think they’d have to forfeit the $3500.
“Jussie’s Boys” sounds like a sitcom starring John Stamos as a single dad raising four boys alone, and hijinks ensues.
Well, they don’t have the money yet.
They were paid with a $3,500 check(!), which has not been cashed yet. It’s currently in the possession of the prosecution authorities. Presumably, it is their property and will eventually be returned to them, after legal proceedings are completed. Whether there will still be money in the account to cover it at that time is a good question. But it’s possible they could sell the check to some collector for more than its’ face value.
Oh wow! Every little detail that comes out just makes this so much more bizarre.
The check will probably be stale by the time it gets returned to them, if it ever does.
And I’m sure the feds will have their eyes open to see whether the lads declare the payment on their tax return.
Have mercy!
Well, that’s one son up.
If it was 3 boys being raised alone, it’s either “My Three Sons” or, if western, “Bonanza”.
With 2 boys, it’s “Leave it to Beaver” or “Flipper”.
With only 1 son, it’s “The Rifleman”.
One of these things is not like the others.
(And one son could also be “Gentle Ben.”)
Contracts to perform illegal acts are void as against public policy. So at least in theory, Smollet gets his money back.
Conspiracy is an inchoate crime, meaning you don’t actually have to complete the offense to be guilty of conspiracy (as with attempt). Smollet apparently *hoped *to benefit financially from the fake battery, even though he didn’t.
Just an update:
According to a document prepared by the State’s Attorney’s office, Abel Osundairo deposited the check into his bank account on Jan 29, 2019, the date of the planned incident. The check was backdated to Jan 23.