Jussie Smollett’s conviction was overturned Thursday by the Illinois Supreme Court in connection with the staged 2019 “hate hoax” attack against him. The state’s highest court ruled that Smollett’s case should have ended when county prosecutors dropped the charges against him in exchange for community service and a $10,000 payment. When a special prosecutor was brought in and recharged Smollett, leading to his conviction, that violated Smollett’s Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy, according to the court. Smollett, 42, has maintained his innocence throughout the entire case. The “Empire” star, who is Black and gay, claimed he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack as he walked through downtown Chicago on Jan. 29, 2019. Investigators eventually determined that Smollett paid two brothers — Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo — to stage the attack, call him racial and homophobic slurs and toss a noose around his neck. Both brothers eventually testified against Smollett at his December 2021 trial, and he was convicted on five counts of disorderly conduct and sentenced to 150 days in prison. But Smollett continued to appeal his case, and he only served six days before a judge released him on appeal. Olabinjo Osundairo, left, and Abimbola Osundairo appear on “Hannity,” at Fox News Studios, Thursday, March 16, 2023, in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP) The initial case against Smollett was dropped in March 2019 by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx. Prosecutors said they cut a deal with Smollett’s defense team in exchange for him performing 16 hours of community service and forfeiting his $10,000 bond. The decision drew uproar from the community, leading to the appointment of special prosecutor Dan Webb — who once famously deposed President Ronald Reagan over the Iran-Contra affair. In February 2020, Webb refiled charges against Smollett, leading to his eventual conviction. But the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Webb’s appointment and the second investigation never should have happened after the initial deal. “What would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the state was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied,” the justices wrote. With News Wire Services