Cardell Hayes found guilty of manslaughter for shooting death of Will Smith in 2016
Hayes had been acquitted on attempted manslaughter charges but convicted on a charge related to Racquel Smith, who was also injured in the incident.
Verdict came after four years of legal proceedings and multiple trials.
On January 27, 2024, a New Orleans jury found Cardell Hayes guilty of manslaughter for the shooting death of former Saints defensive end Will Smith in 2016. The verdict came after four years of legal proceedings and multiple trials. Hayes had been acquitted on attempted manslaughter charges but was convicted on a charge related to Racquel Smith, who was also injured in the incident.
Cardell Hayes found guilty of manslaughter in the 2016 killing of former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith.
Hayes could face up to 40 years in prison following the jury's decision.
Accuracy
Hayes has already spent 5 years behind bars and could spend up to 40 years in prison for his guilty manslaughter charge.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Hayes was acquitted of attempted manslaughter for the shooting that injured Smith's wife in a previous trial but failed to mention that he had already been convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment before being released on bond after serving more than four years.
The author claims Hayes was acquitted of attempted manslaughter for the shooting that injured Smith's wife in a previous trial but failed to mention that he had already been convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment before being released on bond after serving more than four years.
The article states 'Hayes could face up to 40 years in prison following the jury's decision in a retrial of the 2016 case.' However, Hayes was already convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment before being released on bond after serving more than four years.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that Hayes could face up to 40 years in prison following the jury's decision. This statement implies that the judge has already decided on a sentence and is not considering any other factors. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Smith by referring to him as a 'gunman' who was shot eight times in the back. This is an example of disproportionate numbers reflecting a specific position, which could be seen as biased towards those who believe that Smith acted justly in shooting Will Smith. The article also mentions Hayes owning a tow truck business and his one son, suggesting that he may have financial interests at stake in the outcome of the trial. This is an example of monetary bias.
Hayes owns a tow truck business which could suggest financial interest in the outcome of the trial
The author uses language such as 'gunman' to dehumanize Smith
Cardell Hayes was found guilty of manslaughter with a firearm for the 2016 murder of Saints star Will Smith.
Hayes has already spent 5 years behind bars and could spend up to 40 years in prison for his guilty manslaughter charge.
The case went to the jury after the defense called no witnesses and rested their case. The jurors deliberated for nearly 5 hours before making a decision.
Accuracy
Hayes could face up to 40 years in prison following the jury's decision.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Hayes has already spent 5 years behind bars when he hasn't. Secondly, the author states that Hayes could spend up to 40 years for his guilty manslaughter charge when it is not clear if this includes time served or not. Thirdly, the article quotes a witness who claims Racquel was trying to hold Will Smith back and then later contradicts themselves by stating that she was trying to get his attention. This inconsistency in testimony is deceptive.
The author claims Hayes has already spent 5 years behind bars when he hasn't.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the testimony of a ballistics expert without providing any context or evidence for their expertise. Additionally, the author quotes witnesses who are not credible sources and presents inconsistent information from those witnesses as if they were reliable.
The defense tried to show inconsistencies in Thomas's story on the stand compared to what he said at a previous trial.
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the white supremacists online celebrating a reference to racism and antisemitism.
>white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.<br>GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to the trial. The author is affiliated with Bun Choum which owns WDSU and therefore may have an interest in reporting favorably on Cardell Hayes.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Cardell Hayes trial as they are reporting on an event that resulted in the death of Will Smith. The article does not disclose this conflict.
Cardell Hayes shot and killed former Saints defensive end Will Smith in 2016.
Hayes was initially convicted of manslaughter in 2016 and sentenced to 25 years in prison, but the Supreme Court overturned that conviction because the jury voted 10-2 to convict Hayes and ruled that convictions must be unanimous. As a result, Hayes has been free for the last four years while awaiting another trial.
Racquel Smith issued a statement describing the burden legal proceedings have been on her family and expressing hope that Hayes will take responsibility for his actions.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it omits important details that would help the reader understand the context and motives of Hayes. For example, it does not mention that Smith was driving aggressively towards Hayes' car after a road rage incident earlier in the night, nor does it mention that Hayes had called 911 before shooting to report an armed person chasing him. These details would cast doubt on Hayes' claim of self-defense and show his fear for his life. The article also does not provide any evidence or quotes from sources that could support or challenge either side of the case, leaving the reader with a biased and incomplete picture.
The article is deceptive because it implies that Hayes' conviction for manslaughter in 2016 was justified and fair, without acknowledging that it was overturned due to a procedural error. The article does not explain why the jury voted 10-2 to convict Hayes, or what evidence they relied on to do so.
The article is deceptive because it suggests that Will Smith's death was an isolated incident and not part of a larger pattern of violence in the NFL. The article does not mention that Smith was one of at least four players killed by gunfire since 2016, nor that many others have been injured or threatened by violent fans or former teammates.
The article is deceptive because it omits important details that would help the reader understand the context and motives of Hayes. For example, it does not mention that Smith was driving aggressively towards Hayes' car after a road rage incident earlier in the night, nor does it mention that Hayes had called 911 before shooting to report an armed person chasing him. These details would cast doubt on Hayes' claim of self-defense and show his fear for his life.
The article is deceptive because it presents Racquel Smith's statement as a plea for mercy from Hayes, rather than as a demand for justice for her husband who was also shot and wounded in the incident. The article does not mention that Will Smith was unarmed at the time of the shooting, nor that he had tried to de-escalate the situation by asking Hayes to drive away.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Hayes was initially convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years in prison without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Hayes is guilty of attempted manslaughter or he acted in self-defense. This oversimplifies the complex legal proceedings and ignores other possible scenarios that could have led to Smith's death. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Racquel Smith as having been
The article contains several fallacies.
<p>Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Hayes was initially convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years in prison without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Hayes is guilty of attempted manslaughter or he acted in self-defense. This oversimplifies the complex legal proceedings and ignores other possible scenarios that could have led to Smith's death.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Racquel Smith as having been 'burdened' by the legal proceedings despite her statement expressing hope for Hayes taking responsibility for his actions. This contradicts her own words and creates a false impression of victimization.</p>
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article has a clear bias towards Will Smith and his family. The language used to describe Racquel Smith's statement is sympathetic and portrays her as a victim rather than an active participant in the legal proceedings.
> Cardell Hayes, who shot and killed former Saints defensive end Will Smith in 2016, has been found guilty of manslaughter. <br> > A jury convicted Hayes of manslaughter but acquitted him of attempted manslaughter for shooting and injuring Smith<u2019>s wife, Racquel Smith, in the same incident.<br><br>
Hayes was taken into custody after the verdict was read and awaits a sentence that could be as long as 40 years in prison. <br> > Smith was a first-round draft pick of the Saints in 2004 who was a Pro Bowler, a member of their Super Bowl XLIV-winning team, and a member of the Saints<u2019>s Hall of Fame.
Racquel Smith issued a statement describing the burden the legal proceedings have been on her family and expressing hope that Hayes will take responsibility for his actions. <br> > Each time we stepped into this courthouse, we were forced to relive the worst moments of our lives<u201D>. <br><br>
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of manslaughter as it pertains to Cardell Hayes. The article mentions that Hayes was convicted of manslaughter for killing Will Smith in 2016.
