- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Will Smith's Killer Seeks New Trial Following SCOTUS Ruling on Split Verdicts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 1:01 pm
NOLA.com
quote:
Cardell Hayes, the New Orleans tow-truck driver who is serving a 25-year prison sentence for the street killing of New Orleans Saints legend Will Smith four years ago, filed legal papers on Wednesday seeking a new trial based on Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing non-unanimous jury verdicts.
Hayes, 32, is among scores and perhaps hundreds of Louisiana inmates who are likely to claim they fall under the high court’s ruling, which erased split-verdict laws that have remained in effect in Louisiana for 120 years, and in Oregon for 86 years.
The laws in both states were birthed in racism. Louisiana voters overwhelmingly backed a 2018 ballot measure that did away with split juries, but only for crimes committed in 2019 or later.
3
Posted on 4/23/20 at 1:17 pm to rt3
Good. About time.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 1:41 pm to rt3
Good. There should be little to no doubt that a person committed a crime after the facts are presented in order to convict.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 1:51 pm to Northshore Saint
His verdict was rendered 10-2, which is exactly the type of issue this SCOUTS decision is directed at. It's utter lunacy that someone could be sent away for 25 years, or even life, without unanimity.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:00 pm to BenDover78
just to remind those who may have forgotten...
this wasn't a case of "did Hayes kill Smith"
Hayes readily admits to pulling the trigger that night
this was all around a self-defense claim by Hayes that he felt Smith was about to kill him
as noted... it was a 10-2 verdict to convict Hayes
this wasn't a case of "did Hayes kill Smith"
Hayes readily admits to pulling the trigger that night
this was all around a self-defense claim by Hayes that he felt Smith was about to kill him
as noted... it was a 10-2 verdict to convict Hayes
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:09 pm to rt3
Right. It was a 50/50 case based on the facts presented.
The law that was overturned (that allowed states to implement this stupid practice) was rooted in complete racism.
The law that was overturned (that allowed states to implement this stupid practice) was rooted in complete racism.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:11 pm to BenDover78
I railed against this law in law school.
Then I served on a Orleans Paris jury in a major case, and now I am decidedly mixed on it.
Then I served on a Orleans Paris jury in a major case, and now I am decidedly mixed on it.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:12 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I railed against this law in law school.
Then I served on a Orleans Paris jury in a major case, and now I am decidedly mixed on it.
can you explain further on this, please?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:13 pm to Fun Bunch
Interesting perspective and duly noted.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:14 pm to BenDover78
quote:
His verdict was rendered 10-2, which is exactly the type of issue this SCOUTS decision is directed at. It's utter lunacy that someone could be sent away for 25 years, or even life, without unanimity.
I’m torn on this. On one hand I agree with you.
On the other, I see how many people are going to walk because there’s certain people on a jury who are never going to vote guilty.
It’s tough.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:14 pm to rt3
That was a good ruling. How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt when you don’t have a unanimous verdict?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:15 pm to BenDover78
It is lunacy that cognitively deficient citizens should be qualified to be on juries just because they exist for a certain number of years.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:18 pm to rt3
I don't want to go into too much detail. Let's just says it was an open and shut case with witnesses, co-defendant's testifying against, and DNA evidence. One juror flat out admitted he would never convict someone of his race for any crime no matter the evidence after about 12 hours of us beating on him. He finally gave in. If I wasn't the foreman of that jury I'm not sure it would have worked out.
My wife had the exact same experience with even stronger evidence but 3 jurors flat out said they would not send any of their people to jail. Ended in a hung, my wife was in tears after the whole experience, for the young victim.
One of my close friends is an ADA and has told me horror stories of jury nullification.
In the rest of Louisiana it may not be an issue, but in Orleans Parish it is very, VERY real from talking with people and my own experiences.
Does that outweigh the potential justice it does for those that need it? Probably not, that's why I said "I am mixed on it".
I do have trepidation but it is purely on my own experiences. It is the right call in the interest of justice and Constitutionality, but I can still have conflicting thoughts on it.
My wife had the exact same experience with even stronger evidence but 3 jurors flat out said they would not send any of their people to jail. Ended in a hung, my wife was in tears after the whole experience, for the young victim.
One of my close friends is an ADA and has told me horror stories of jury nullification.
In the rest of Louisiana it may not be an issue, but in Orleans Parish it is very, VERY real from talking with people and my own experiences.
Does that outweigh the potential justice it does for those that need it? Probably not, that's why I said "I am mixed on it".
I do have trepidation but it is purely on my own experiences. It is the right call in the interest of justice and Constitutionality, but I can still have conflicting thoughts on it.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:19 pm to Skeezer
quote:
How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt when you don’t have a unanimous verdict?
The law stated that 10 out of 12 jurors had to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
It didnt say "you 12 people have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means at least 10 of yall think he did it."
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:25 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I don't want to go into too much detail. Let's just says it was an open and shut case with witnesses, co-defendant's testifying against, and DNA evidence. One juror flat out admitted he would never convict someone of his race for any crime no matter the evidence after about 12 hours of us beating on him. He finally gave in. If I wasn't the foreman of that jury I'm not sure it would have worked out.
My wife had the exact same experience with even stronger evidence but 3 jurors flat out said they would not send any of their people to jail. Ended in a hung, my wife was in tears after the whole experience, for the young victim.
One of my close friends is an ADA and has told me horror stories of jury nullification.
In the rest of Louisiana it may not be an issue, but in Orleans Parish it is very, VERY real from talking with people and my own experiences.
Does that outweigh the potential justice it does for those that need it? Probably not, that's why I said "I am mixed on it".
I do have trepidation but it is purely on my own experiences. It is the right call in the interest of justice and Constitutionality, but I can still have conflicting thoughts on it.
damn... that's very interesting
thanks for the explanation
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:26 pm to rt3
Like I said, in theory, it is now the right call. It is rational and the original rule is steeped in racism.
Personal experience can shade what you know to be rational.
Personal experience can shade what you know to be rational.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:27 pm to Ash Williams
I think he means- how can there be "beyond a reasonable doubt" when 2 jurors literally say "WE HAVE DOUBT"
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:30 pm to Fun Bunch
Getting 12 people to agree on anything usually takes an Act or God. Glad I’m not a prosecutor.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:30 pm to Fun Bunch
Very interesting.
Personally I think it makes more sense to give people any reasonable aid/assistance when their life is on the line. I would prefer the law to have mechanisms in place (it already does) to create the benefit in favor of the person who could potentially spend the rest of their life in prison. Rather than have the law anticipate the lack of intelligence or illogical reasoning of jurors mentioned here. It seems like the law was built around the exception and in the process, people like Cardell Hayes suffer
Personally I think it makes more sense to give people any reasonable aid/assistance when their life is on the line. I would prefer the law to have mechanisms in place (it already does) to create the benefit in favor of the person who could potentially spend the rest of their life in prison. Rather than have the law anticipate the lack of intelligence or illogical reasoning of jurors mentioned here. It seems like the law was built around the exception and in the process, people like Cardell Hayes suffer
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:31 pm to BenDover78
In theory, you are 100% right.
When you have served on the actual jury, it is incredibly frustrating and totally disturbing.
When you have served on the actual jury, it is incredibly frustrating and totally disturbing.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News