- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Garrett Wards manslaughter conviction has been vacated.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:27 am to King of New Orleans
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:27 am to King of New Orleans
quote:what’s even more amazing is how free you are to spout lies and nonsense without a shred of evidence to back you up, with no repercussions whatsoever
Amazing that he’s behind bars yet the Anthony kid is free and now rich.
also your username is gay (as you already know) and you sound marginally underdeveloped
2
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:32 am to cgrand
quote:
also your username is gay (as you already know) and you sound marginally underdeveloped
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:38 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I'll be curious to see if a relative decrease in fanfare surrounding the case gives the State a bit more space to try to resolve it short of trial
The race and socioeconomic stuff will still surround the case. I’m somewhat shocked the DA elicited that testimony to begin with. Seems like a risk he didn’t need to take given the other evidence.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 9:45 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The race and socioeconomic stuff will still surround the case. I’m somewhat shocked the DA elicited that testimony to begin with. Seems like a risk he didn’t need to take given the other evidence.
While it will, the general public has a relatively short attention span. They've already burned their powder on this one. The events were seven years ago and the trial was three years ago. Plenty of other things for the public to focus on since then.
Now, I'm not saying Williams couldn't whip them up again if he wanted to; I'll be curious to see whether he wants to.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:00 am to cgrand
I think king of New Orleans has said he’s autistic before on here
This case gets weird reactions around here because it’s scary hobo vs insurance salesman type white guy and this is a forum for insurance salesman white guys
You’d think yall would pull for your own
This case gets weird reactions around here because it’s scary hobo vs insurance salesman type white guy and this is a forum for insurance salesman white guys
You’d think yall would pull for your own
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:57 am to bdavids09
Those damn liberal judges
Posted on 5/3/25 at 1:34 pm to Saunson69
quote:
As tragic of a situation as it gets because even if he is let out, it will always follow him.
No man, what makes it tragic is that the person he killed is dead.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:16 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
insurance salesman type white guy
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:30 pm to bdavids09
Cliffs or something. I can't be remembering every random murderer's name.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:38 pm to calcotron
quote:
Cliffs or something. I can't be remembering every random murderer's name.
That's what Google is for, my man.
And I'm not saying that just to be a dick. I own Alphabet stock so I need people to use Google as often as possible.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:45 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
It has been vacated and remanded for a new trial. Distilled down it is because the prosecution elicited a racial epithet Ward supposedly uttered during the assault. That is a bit of a no no but you generally don't see a post-conviction mistrial based on a single utterance supposedly from the defendant's mouth.
Is this not a hearsay exception if it's something someone heard the defendant say?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 2:53 pm to King of New Orleans
quote:
Dude was being robbed and fought the dude who happened to die. The guy also had drugs in his system. Same kind of deal as George Floyd.
Kind of crazy that there wasn’t a single witness that saw him being robbed and that none of his friends or girlfriend testified on his behalf. Or that he forgot to mention he was being robbed when he was originally arrested. Whoops.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:05 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Is this not a hearsay exception if it's something someone heard the defendant say?
It isn't a hearsay issue. The witness could testify to what Ward said during the attack the problem comes in when he purportedly used the N word and the witness repeated it.
This potentially causes racial prejudice within the jury. SCOTUS hasn't ruled if something like this is a structural error but the LA court decided that this reached the point of reversible error due to the potential racial bias preventing Ward from having an impartial jury and thus prevented him from having a fair trial.
IMO the trial did not turn on that, but to have any real feel for it one must be in the courtroom and paying close attention to the jury at that moment.
This is clearly a win for Ward, he gets another bite at the apple. If I was forced to bet I would say he will lose again if it is retried but he was definitely not going to win sitting in a cell. Prosecutors tend to go two ways with a retrial they either limp out or they go 100%.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:24 pm to Obtuse1
Why would it matter what words were said? That doesn't make any sense.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:26 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
It has been vacated and remanded for a new trial. Distilled down it is because the prosecution elicited a racial epithet Ward supposedly uttered during the assault. That is a bit of a no no but you generally don't see a post-conviction mistrial based on a single utterance supposedly from the defendant's mouth.
If a witness testifies he heard Ward call the victim a racial epithet, while he was beating his victim to death- why shouldn't the jury hear that?
Why shouldn't the DA ask the witness if he heard Ward say anything?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:28 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Obtuse1
Is there a bright line where it went from permissible to prejudicial? Like, I read the quote in the news and she said it a bunch. If she said it just once would the conviction have been vacated?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:29 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
It isn't a hearsay issue. The witness could testify to what Ward said during the attack the problem comes in when he purportedly used the N word and the witness repeated it.
This potentially causes racial prejudice within the jury.
LOLWUT. It's something he said himself when he was beating the guy to death.
So the actual facts of a case cannot be presented to a jury because they are just too bad for the killer's case?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:33 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Why would it matter what words were said? That doesn't make any sense.
In the grand scheme, it is a prejudicial vs probative issue. There is a long list of SCOTUS cases (and I assume LA cases) that deal with such issues. In the specific case I doubt it made a difference, but I also guarantee the prosecutor knew the line they were straddling by bringing it in.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:36 pm to Obtuse1
I assume it was ruled inadmissible pretrial. Seems pretty probative to me if it was right before, during, or immediately after. Maybe it wasn't.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:45 pm to REG861
quote:
Is there a bright line where it went from permissible to prejudicial?
First, I do not practice in LA nor do I practice criminal law.
AFAIK there is no bright line test for this since again AFAIK no case has dealet with this exact type of testimony pattern. There is however, a large body of caselaw dealing with racially charged testimony and how the court sees the potential prejudice from it. I think it is a bit overzealous but it is all rooted in Blackstone's Ratio.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News