Supreme Court tosses conviction of man who shot, killed former Saints DE Will Smith

NFC Championship: Minnesota Vikings v New Orleans Saints
Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court has thrown out the manslaughter conviction of Cardell Hayes, who shot and killed former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith in a traffic incident in April 2016.

Via Ramon Antonio Vargas of NOLA.com, the case was tossed on the heels of a Supreme Court case last year that concluded that split jury verdicts are unconstitutional. Hayes was convicted by a New Orleans jury in 2017 in a 10-2 decision against. Hayes was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the incident.

The Supreme Court decision on split jury verdicts applied to future cases and any cases still under active appeal, which is why Hayes’ conviction was subject to the statute.

Hayes and Smith engaged in an argument after their vehicles collided. Hayes then fatally shot Smith and his wife Racquel was also injured in the incident. Hayes claimed he acted in self defense.

The likely road ahead for Hayes will include a new trial at the local level.

6 responses to “Supreme Court tosses conviction of man who shot, killed former Saints DE Will Smith

  1. Good to see that the Supreme Court is spending their time on the most pressing issues at hand.

  2. Agree that verdict should be unanimous in capital case crimes. It’s not a civil case, so the person should not lose their liberties unless all the jurors agree to verdict. Retrial option for hung juries is expensive, but the right course of action.

  3. theringisthething says:
    January 11, 2021 at 10:57 pm

    Good to see that the Supreme Court is spending their time on the most pressing issues at hand.
    ==================
    Only Louisiana and Oregon allowed conviction in a criminal case with less than unanimous decision. Both states changed this law, by voter referendum, prior to this decision by the Supreme Court, which occurred back in June, BTW.

    I would think this is a very pressing issue to people who have had their freedom taken away because the state was able to convince a simple majority of a jury of a person’s guilt.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.