Cardell Hayes manslaughter conviction of Will Smith overturned by Supreme Court

Are we surprised? I am not going to say anything more! DONE.

Have you read the decision it was based on? In April (2020) the Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, and ruled 6-3 with Gorsuch (who wrote the opinion), Roberts, and Kavanaugh joining RGB, Breyer, and Sotomayor, that Louisiana's "10-2" jury conviction rule was unconstitutional because jury verdicts must be unanimous. The rationale for this is that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, trial by jury was understood to mean that the verdict must be unanimous. A non-unanimous (or "hung") jury verdict is not a proper final verdict - it is a mistrial. The Court also concluded that a 1972 case (Apodaca) had already ruled non-unanimous jury laws unconstitutional.

From the opinion:

One of these requirements [of a proper jury verdict] was unanimity. Wherever we might look to determine what the term “trial by an impartial jury trial” meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable. A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict. The requirement of juror unanimity emerged in 14th century England and was soon accepted as a vital right protected by the common law. As Blackstone explained, no person could be found guilty of a serious crime unless “the truth of every accusation . . . should . . . be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors, indifferently chosen, and superior to all suspicion.” A “‘verdict, taken from eleven, was no verdict’” at all.

This same rule applied in the young American States. Six State Constitutions explicitly required unanimity. Another four preserved the right to a jury trial in more general terms. But the variations did not matter much; consistent with the common law, state courts appeared to regard unanimity as an essential feature of the jury trial. It was against this backdrop that James Madison drafted and the States ratified the Sixth Amendment in 1791. By that time, unanimous verdicts had been required for about 400 years.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
The opinion describes that Louisiana's 10-2 jury rule was originated in 1898, when the Jim Crow era in the South truly solidified, based on Louisiana lawmakers' concerns that African American jurors would acquit African American defendants based solely on their race. So the 10-2 rule would mean that as long as there weren't more than two African Americans on the jury, the prosecutor could still get a conviction. Think about what that means: the rule was aimed solely at convictions for Black defendants. It had no relevance to white defendants.

So I'm curious what the basis of your criticism is. If you think the Court was wrong to overturn a rule borne out of institutional racism at the end of the 19th Century, in one of America's darkest legal eras, aimed solely to aid in the conviction of Black defendants that contradicted a centuries-old element of what makes a proper jury trial (as understood by the framers of the Constitution), you're going to have to say why.