Cardell Hayes manslaughter conviction of Will Smith overturned by Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

Saint Kamara

Formerly SaintSproles and SaintReggie
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
38,737
Reaction score
51,534
Age
56
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
Sticky Post
Someone will have to explain this one to me, because I'm lost.



In 2016, Cardell Hayes was convicted of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of retired New Orleans Saints defensive leader Will Smith. Monday, the U.S. Supreme ...
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,834
Reaction score
18,047
Location
Xibalba
Offline

KaYoTiiC

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
1,336
Offline
One of my friends growing up was in the car behind Will Smith. That dude Murdered him in cold blood. Damn shame

RIP Will Smith
 

Madmarsha

I default to sarcasm
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
31,014
Reaction score
42,003
Offline
One of my friends growing up was in the car behind Will Smith. That dude Murdered him in cold blood. Damn shame

RIP Will Smith
I thought Cardell's car was the one behind Will's?


"Hayes was sentenced to 25 years on the manslaughter count and 15 years on the attempted manslaughter count, with the terms to run concurrently. He could have received 40 years on the first and an additional 20 on the second."

Now, he's already served almost 5 years on this 25 concurrent. Certainly any plea the DA might entertain wouldn't allow for 5 years being time served, will it? THAT would not be justice. Oh, there is nothing uncomplicated about this case.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
5,349
Reaction score
9,628
Location
Da Pernt, NOLA
Offline
The SCOTUS typically errs on the side of liberty and justice regardless of political leanings of the court, so this ruling isn't surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if Williams lets this go, though. This trial would be a political landmine for him. He's a 180 from Cannizzaro, who prosecuted Hayes originally. Williams has a lot more on his mind. Also, it's gonna be difficult to find a potential 12-0 jury pool on this case. There's a lot of people in New Orleans who want Hayes out, or who think he has served enough time.

FWIW from what I know of the case I'd vote to convict and I'm pretty strict on the whole "innocent til proven guilty" thing.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,651
Reaction score
10,189
Offline
Now, I could be wrong, but this sounds, er, vaguely political. A man is dead, a wife was shot. Two kids lost a dad and could have lost their mom, too. Let's not forget that by drawing political lines here and obfuscating the underlying facts.
Well you can't expect him to miss the chance to dance on a man's grave just so he can push his politics in a politics free zone, can you?
 

B-Train

The West Bank's Favorite Son
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
13,739
Age
33
Location
Los Santos, CA
Offline
Can people please move the political discussion to somewhere else? I'm more interested in what is going to happen to Hayes going forward. Will he be re-tried or re-convicted for this? I'm not sure what kind of precedence this sets.
 

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
57,727
Reaction score
88,077
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Saint Greg

SR is my life!
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
17,359
Reaction score
16,524
Location
USA
Offline
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) and Roberts joining RGB, Breyer, Kagan, 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:




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.
Kavanaugh was in the majority. Kagan was in the dissent.
 

KaYoTiiC

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
1,336
Offline
So your friend was in the car with Cordell Hayes?
No way! There was another car with Will Smith. From what I heard they instigated allot of this. It’s 2 twins that always had the reputation for starting trouble. Sucks
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom