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

If anyone has some time, review The Death of NFL start Will Smith on you tube made by Vice Sports. It's about 40 minutes long. Interesting interviews from members who participated in the trial and also from the lawyers.
I’m gonna check that out. Ty for the heads up.
 
If anyone has some time, review The Death of NFL star Will Smith on you tube made by Vice Sports. It's about 40 minutes long. Interesting interviews from members who participated in the trial and also from the lawyers.
Thanks. I will!
 
It does seem excessive to me.
Even if he stands his ground with his gun trained on Will....anything rather than shooting 7 or 8 times, and in the back. I just don’t see how that’s self defense.
I agree with you. I can get it starting out as that, but there was just too much time playing out that Will didn't even have a gun in his own hand yet.

I'm curious what the jury charge was in this case because that's what the jury has to go into the deliberation room with.
 
How that night should have ended up was Will Smith being arrested for DUI hit and run. He admittedly made the first wrong decision and then Cardell Hayes pursued making the second and ultimately "wronger" wrong decision. Cardell Hayes stayed on scene giving credence to his belief that what he had done was act in self defense and I'm sure what he still thinks today. But he was wrong.
 
Last edited:
The other car with Will Smith we're familiar with was Pierre Thomas' car. You say there was a third car in his party?
Yes it was an Impala.. highly doubt they were eating Sushi with them because I can’t see either one of them liking Sushi.
 
It's a mistrial. So the prosecution can try it again if they want to.


There is a lot going on in this thread. A tried a lot of murder trials and got convictions under the old non-unanimous law. And other laws may have changed since then, so since I don't do much criminal law anymore, here is my perhaps outdated take on unanimous juries and double jeopardy.

First the double jeopardy. Hayes was charged with second degree murder and found guilty of a lesser offense, manslaughter. The manslaughter verdict was over turned. I think double jeopardy attaches to the second degree murder charge of which he was effectively acquitted. I think they can, and will, try him again for manslaughter. DA's are political animals. We have a well liked famous Saints player killed, shot in the back. I would think the case will be tried again.

I have always been in favor of non-unanimous juries in civil and in criminal cases. Its so hard to convince 12 people of anything, regardless of the evidence. We have more people than we want to believe who think Sandy Hook was faked and that the government is run by a secret society of pedophiles. You cant win any case with one juror on the panel who thinks all news is fake when all you need is one holdout to hang a jury.

Non-unanimous juries make the job of defense attorneys much easier. All you need to one doubting Thomas on the jury. Most of the cases I tried in New Orleans involved African American victims, as well as defendants, so I never saw non-unanimous juries as being a racial thing. People of all colors want to be protected from bad guys of all colors.

What I did not know, and learned when the bill to do away with non-unanimous juries was introduced, was that the idea of non-unanimous juries was rooted in racism. I was educated by the history of this and the evidence that the concept of non unanimous juries was rooted in racism is compelling, The idea of non-unanimous juries was part of a plan to disenfranchise black jurors, I believe that to be true. That honestly never occurred to me as I tried many cases with non-unanimous juries. In thinking back on it, I think most all of my murder cases were unanimous verdicts. I did have a jury hang 11-1 on the death penalty phase with one holdout that spared the defendant the death penalty. I was not then and am not now a big fan of the death penalty, so it was not a disappointment. Even back then, unanimous juries were required for the death penalty.

I do not think non-unanimous juries in Orleans parish in recent years or so have actually disenfranchised black jurors in the way some claim, nor do I think race was an issue in the Hayes case where a black man shot a black man. Orleans parish is predominantly African American now and the jury pool is reflecting that. In the past juries might have only a couple black jurors, now there might be some majority black juries. I do not know the race composition of the jury Hayes had, I assume it was mixed. I just do not think race played a factor in his conviction, it could have, it just doesn't sound like it did.

I suppose that given the history of non-unanimous juries being rooted in racism, it was best the law changed to unanimous juries. That might save an innocent man from being convicted, something no good person wants. The law change does make it harder to convict any criminal, white or black. Since most of the victims of crime in New Orleans are black, there is an unintended consequence of the law change that impacts them, that is, that people who commit crimes against blacks will be harder to convict. It doesn't sound like much in the abstract as we discuss it here, its not abstract if the guy who killed your son or spouse walks after an 11-1 verdict to convict.

That said, we value due process greatly in our country and probably due to the way our ancestors were unfairly imprisoned before the revolutionary war, we think it better for a few guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to jail, and I get that too. So I do favor unanimous juries, but if you excuse the pun, its not as black and white an issue as it seems. One might even argue if we started seeing predominantly black juries that unanimous juries work to the benefit of white defendants.

Back to the Hayes case. I am one with great faith in juries, that almost all the juries I have ever seen take their job very seriously and try to to the right and fair thing. I thought under all the circumstances, manslaughter was the right verdict. Smith did paly a role in creating the conflict. But Hayes killed him and, in my view, had opportunities to withdraw from the situation.
 
Last edited:
I know I wasn't on the jury and don't know what else I may have heard to change my opinion. But knowing what little I do know, here's how I may have thought being a juror on the case: Will Smith died leaning into his car draped over his steering wheel. Now, in the time it was taking for him to admittedly go for his own gun as he said he was, Cardell Hughes could have taken cover and/or fled the scene to his own safety in defense of his life. Instead, he shot two people multiple times both of whom were unarmed at the time.
See my edited post for clarifying statements.

Reprinted here for convenience:

Edit: my comment above isn't specific to this case, it was only in response to the generic scenario of someone being shot in the back in general is illegal. So please don't take it out of this context and apply it only to this case. Say for instance someone is turning away from you to assault someone else, shooting them in the back may be a valid option.
 
If someone tells you they are going to get a gun after being aggressive and belligerent, you may have only moments to determine the legitimacy of the threat and defend yourself or find you have lost your life.
If I was Smith, I’d be belligerent too if someone deliberately slammed into the back of my vehicle hard enough to shatter the back glass and then got out armed and looking for a confrontation. Because that’s what all the bits of the story are leading towards being what happened.

Smith made a poor choice drinking and driving resulting in hitting Hayes’ vehicle. Hayes made a poor decision to pursue and violently ram Smith’s vehicle in retaliation. Hayes then made another poor decision to get out armed and subsequently shoot two unarmed people (one of which being in the back 7 times) and attempted to claim self defense. If it was truly an instance of self defense then Racquel Smith should not have any bullet wounds.

Those saying “sMiTh cOuLd HaVe dEeScALaTeD tHe SiTuAtiOn”, yeah well so could have Hayes, and it’d start with not chasing down and ramming the offending vehicle. Hayes was the aggressor, end of story.
 
Last edited:
It does seem excessive to me.
Even if he stands his ground with his gun trained on Will....anything rather than shooting 7 or 8 times, and in the back. I just don’t see how that’s self defense.
I saw it. It appeared to be in favor of Hayes.
 
First the double jeopardy. Hayes was charged with second degree murder and found guilty of a lesser offense, manslaughter. The manslaughter verdict was over turned. I think double jeopardy attaches to the second degree murder charge of which he was effectively acquitted. I think they can, and will, try him again for manslaughter
Thanks for your comments, stdude.
What I did not know, and learned when the bill to do away with non-unanimous juries was introduced, was that the idea of non-unanimous juries was rooted in racism. I was educated by the history of this and the evidence that the concept of non unanimous juries was rooted in racism is compelling
It surprised me when I first moved south from up north and found that juries were not unanimous here. I had never heard of such a thing or why it was so. Never occurred to me the attorneys working down here didn't know the history of it.
 
Last edited:

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

    Back
    Top Bottom