Cardell Hayes fatally shot former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith in a 2016 road rage incident.
Hayes is set to face a manslaughter retrial on Monday, with the trial focusing on whether he acted in self-defense when he fired at Smith after a car crash.
Cardell Hayes, the man who fatally shot former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith in a 2016 road rage incident, is set to face a manslaughter retrial. The trial will begin on Monday and will focus on whether Hayes acted in self-defense when he fired at Smith after a car crash. Evidence from the original trial showed that Smith was intoxicated at the time of confrontation but there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes' claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon. Despite this, Hayes has long insisted he heard a pop before starting to shoot and did not aim for Racquel Smith, who was hit in the legs. The trial will be closely watched as it is seen as an opportunity for justice to be served for Will Smith's family.
It's unclear if Hayes will be able to prove self-defense in this trial.
The evidence from the original trial showed that Smith was intoxicated at the time of confrontation, which could make it difficult for Hayes to argue self-defense.
Cardell Hayes is set to face a manslaughter retrial for the 2016 road rage-fueled shooting of former New Orleans Saints player Will Smith.
Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of confrontation but there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon.
Accuracy
Cardell Hayes has long insisted he shot Will Smith in self-defense during an April 2016 confrontation after a car crash.
Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of the confrontation but there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes' claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon.
Hayes has long insisted he heard a pop before starting to shoot and did not aim for Racquel Smith, who was hit in the legs.
Smith played defensive leader on the Saints team that lifted spirits in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005.
He helped carry the team to a winning season in 2006 and a Super Bowl victory in 2010.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Cardell Hayes shot Will Smith in self-defense during a confrontation after a car crash. However, there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up this claim. Secondly, the author states that Hayes fired at Smith seven times in the back only because he believed a drunken and belligerent Smith had retrieved a gun from his SUV. This is not true as it contradicts Hayes' own testimony on stand where he stated that he heard a pop before starting to shoot and did not shoot at Smith's wife who was hit in the legs. Lastly, the author states that Hayes has long insisted he shot Smith in self-defense but fails to mention any evidence or witnesses supporting this claim.
The article claims that Cardell Hayes shot Will Smith in self-defense during a confrontation after a car crash. However, there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case and that such convictions must be unanimous.
> The jury's vote was 10-2
<p>Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of the confrontation.</p>
Hayes, who owned a tow truck business, once played semi-pro football and is the father of a young son.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'retired New Orleans Saints star Will Smith' which implies that his fame is tied to religion as football is often associated with it.
> A retrial was set to begin Monday for the man who fatally shot retired New Orleans Saints star Will Smith almost eight years ago.
Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of the confrontation.
Hayes, 36, has long insisted he shot Smith in self-defense during an April 2016 confrontation after a car crash.
Cardell Hayes is set to face a manslaughter retrial for the 2016 road rage-fueled shooting of former New Orleans Saints player Will Smith.
Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of confrontation but there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon.
Hayes has long insisted he heard a pop before starting to shoot and did not aim for Racquel Smith, who was hit in the legs.
Smith played defensive leader on the Saints team that lifted spirits in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005.
He helped carry the team to a winning season in 2006 and a Super Bowl victory in 2010.
Accuracy
Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of confrontation but there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'road rage-fueled shooting' and 'admitted killer', which creates a false sense of urgency and importance for the reader. Secondly, the author quotes witnesses without providing any context or clarification on their credibility or reliability. This is particularly concerning when it comes to witness testimonies that are crucial in determining whether Hayes acted justifiably in shooting Smith. Thirdly, the article fails to disclose sources and only mentions a lack of unanimous jury decision without providing any further information about why this was the case or what evidence led to such a conclusion. Lastly, there is no mention of any peer-reviewed studies linking Hayes' actions with road rage or gun violence.
No sources are disclosed and only a lack of unanimous jury decision is mentioned
The article uses sensationalist language such as 'road rage-fueled shooting'
Witness testimonies are quoted without providing context on their credibility
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest with the topic of Will Smith as he is a former New Orleans Saints player and was involved in the incident that led to his death. The article also mentions Cardell Hayes who shot and killed Smith during a traffic collision.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Will Smith as he is a former New Orleans Saints player and was involved in the incident that led to his death. The article also mentions Cardell Hayes who shot and killed Smith during a traffic collision.
Cardell Hayes is set to go on trial again today for the April 2016 shooting death of former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith as well as the non-fatal shooting of Raquel Smith, the football player's widow.
Months later, a jury convicted Cardell Hayes of manslaughter in Smith's death, rejecting Hayes' claim of self defense in a 10-2 decision. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled non-unanimous convictions unconstitutional, Hayes was entitled to a new trial.
Dane Ciolino, professor at Loyola School of Law said re-trials tend to favor the defense because they have heard all of the state's evidence and can find inconsistencies in testimony. If the jury splits again, that is as good as a win for the defense.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it omits important details that contradict the author's assertions and opinions. For example, the article does not mention that Hayes was initially convicted of manslaughter by a jury in a non-unanimous verdict, meaning at least one juror did not agree with the majority. This implies that there is some doubt or controversy over Hayes' guilt. The article also does not disclose that Ciolini is a professor at Loyola School of Law and an expert on criminal cases, which could influence his credibility as a source of information for the reader. These omissions are examples of selective reporting and bias by omission.
The April 2016 crime shocked the city -- former New Orleans Saints Super Bowl Champion Will Smith, shot dead after an argument following a car crash in the Lower Garden District.
Months later, a jury convicted Cardell Hayes of manslaughter in Smith's death, rejecting Hayes' claim of self defense in a 10-2 decision.
Ciolini said re-trials tend to favor the defense, and it may be very hard for New Orleans District Attorney Jason Williams to get all 12 jurors to agree to a guilty verdict.
In criminal cases, typically, the defense would have an advantage because they have heard all of the state's evidence
This is the second time it's being tried and if this case hangs again, you could expect that Jason Williams' office is going to be forced into offering Cardell Hayes a pretty sweetheart deal
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes Dane Ciolino as saying that re-trials tend to favor the defense. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the crime as a shock and stating that Will Smith was a former New Orleans Saints Super Bowl Champion.
Dane Ciolino, professor at Loyola School of Law said re-trials tend to favor the defense.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that suggests the prosecution is seeking justice for Will Smith. This statement implies that there was an injustice committed against him and his widow Raquel Smith. The author also mentions Cardell Hayes' claim of self-defense which was rejected by the jury, suggesting bias towards one side of the story.
The article contains a statement that suggests the prosecution is seeking justice for Will Smith.
