logo
A split jury and a lie sent him to prison. Now he's working to change Louisiana's law

A split jury and a lie sent him to prison. Now he's working to change Louisiana's law

Yahoo11-05-2025

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — As 18-year-old Bobby Gumpright rode his bike home from his bartending job in New Orleans in 1999, he began to concoct a story about why he didn't have any money. In the throes of addiction and not wanting to admit he had spent his paycheck on drugs, Gumpright lied to his father and said a Black man had robbed him at gunpoint.
The fabrication spun out of control when a detective, armed with photos of potential suspects, asked Gumpright to point to the culprit.
Across town, Jermaine Hudson, a 20-year-old Black man, was pulled over for a traffic stop and taken into custody. He figured he would soon be released to go home to his pregnant wife and 10-month-old daughter.
Instead, he was charged with a crime he didn't commit.
Even though two jurors didn't believe Gumpright's story, Hudson was found guilty by a split jury, a practice that 20 years later would be deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, which acknowledged its origins from racist Jim Crow laws.
Nearly 1,000 people convicted by split juries remain in prison in Louisiana.
Now, 25 years after Gumpright's lies sent Hudson to prison, the two unlikely friends are sharing their story in a push for legislation to give some of those people a chance to have their cases retired.
A split decision
As Hudson sat in the courtroom in 2001, he grappled with a reality that he didn't create.
'Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought my life would have been at a standstill ... missing out on my kids' life, on my life," Hudson told The Associated Press last month.
Two witnesses testified: the officer who responded to the 911 call and Gumpright.
As Gumpright took the stand, Hudson prayed the stranger would acknowledge the wrongful allegation and his nightmare would end.
A prosecutor asked Gumpright, who is white, if he was sure it was Hudson who robbed him. He responded, '110%.'
In a 10-2 vote, the jury convicted Hudson of armed robbery. The judge sentenced him to 99 years in prison.
A practice rooted in racism
At the time of Hudson's trial, only Louisiana and Oregon allowed convictions if one or two jurors disagreed.
Louisiana adopted the practice in 1898, fueled by efforts to maintain white supremacy after the Civil War. Diluting the voice of Black jurors allowed the often-white majority to determine the outcome.
In 2018, Louisiana voters did away with the use of nonunanimous jury convictions, two years before the Supreme Court ruling.
Of the 1,500 people in Louisiana prisons from split jury convictions at that time, about 80% were Black and most were serving life sentences, according to a Project of Justice Initiative analysis.
Following the high court decision, Oregon's Supreme Court granted new trials to hundreds of people. But Louisiana's Supreme Court rejected arguments to apply the ruling retroactively, leaving people like Hudson locked up with scarce legal options or waiting on a miracle.
Waiting 22 years for freedom
Years of Hudson's life dwindled away as he missed the birth of his second daughter, graduations and other milestones. He prayed Gumpright would 'come forward with the truth.'
'This can't be my final destination. This can't be the end of my life,' Hudson often thought.
Gumpright tried to numb his guilt with drugs and alcohol, but it never went away. 'I was either gonna kill myself or I was gonna come forward,' he told the AP.
In 2021, Hudson was preparing to take a new deal: plead guilty to armed robbery in exchange for a sentence of time served. Just days before the bargain was finalized, Hudson received news he long waited for. Gumpright, who had entered a drug treatment facility, had come clean about his lies.
After spending 22 years behind bars, Hudson was released.
A few months later, Gumpright answered a phone call from a blocked number.
'I bet you never thought you'd hear from me,' Hudson said.
Fixing an injustice
A packed committee room at the state Capitol fell silent last month as a man wearing a suit and tie took to the microphone.
'My name is Bobby Gumpright,' he said, his hand trembling. "I come before you as a citizen of Louisiana. ... I'm also a man who lives each day with the consequences of a terrible sin.'
Gumpright told lawmakers his story, the true one. Sitting behind him was Hudson.
The pair first met in New Orleans, six months after Hudson's release. They have spent the past two years advocating for a bill that would give inmates convicted by split juries the opportunity to ask for a retrial. The measure does not automatically grant a retrial.
The duo say their story is an example of how an innocent man can be imprisoned for decades under an unconstitutional practice and that it's never too late to right a wrong.
'I couldn't change the past, but I could refuse to live the lie any longer while injustice continued,' Gumpright told lawmakers. 'Louisiana can't change the past. But Louisiana can refuse to let its injustice live on.'
The measure failed last year, but a legislative committee backed a similar bill in April. It still needs approval from the governor, House and Senate, which could debate it this week
People cheered as the bill cleared its first hurdle. Gumpright and Hudson hugged, holding each other up, as they cried tears of joy.
An unlikely bond
Both men said they needed one another to heal.
Hudson wanted to know why Gumpright lied. Gumpright sought forgiveness.
'I'm not the type of man to hold grudges or to hate anyone,' Hudson said. 'I have a forgiving heart. And in order for me to really move on I forgave him, because I understood what he was going through.'
Sober for four years, Gumpright, 44, is now an addiction counselor. Hudson, 47, moved to Texas, got married, bought a house, is starting a business and spends time with his two grandsons.
Gumpright attended Hudson's housewarming and met his family. They text each other words of encouragement every day and keep photos of each other close by.
'My friend? That's an understatement," Hudson said about his relationship with Gumpright. "He's my brother.'
Sara Cline, The Associated Press

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wander Franco wants ‘justice' as MLB star's sexual abuse trial begins
Wander Franco wants ‘justice' as MLB star's sexual abuse trial begins

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Wander Franco wants ‘justice' as MLB star's sexual abuse trial begins

Wander Franco spoke out in court for the first time as his sexual abuse trial got underway in the Dominican Republic on Monday. The Rays' shortstop has been accused of sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor, and prosecutors have said that they have 'convincing evidence' that Franco committed the crime and then attempted to buy off the victim's mother. Franco has maintained his innocence against the allegations, which surfaced online in social media posts in August 2023 and have forced him away from the game of baseball since. 'I've heard everything they're saying [during the reading of the indictment], but the only thing I'm going to say is [I hope] justice is done,' Franco told the court at the start of the trial on Monday, according to ESPN's Enrique Rojas. Franco also told the court, 'Let justice be done,' before thanking the judges for the opportunity to speak, ESPN Deportes reported. The former MLB All-Star is facing charges of sexually abusing a minor, sexual and commercial exploitation against a minor, and human trafficking after a judge ruled in September that the prosecution had enough evidence to move to trial. Dominican prosecutors have continued to reiterate that Franco 'kidnapped the victim for sexual purposes for several days' and had then given the mother 'large sums of money' in order to 'prevent her from reporting him.' The victim's mother is facing charges of money laundering and is under house arrest for her role. The abuse lasted eight months while the girl's mother benefited from Franco sending her money in order to keep her quiet, prosecutors allege. Franco's defense team argued in court on Monday that the prosecution does not have any evidence to prove their case and claimed the accusations are flawed, ESPN Deportes reported. The baseball player is facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted and the trial could take up to eight months to conclude, according to the Associated Press. Unlike the United States, there are no jury trials in the Dominican Republic, and the case is being heard by a panel of three judges who listen to arguments and witness testimony before analyzing the evidence and making a ruling. Judges Jakayra Veras, Venecia Rojas and José Juan Jiménez are presiding over the case, per ESPN Deportes. Allegations of misconduct came in the form of social media posts on Aug. 13, 2023, that went viral and alleged Franco had an inappropriate relationship with a minor. Franco has not spoken publicly about the allegations other than saying 'everything is in God's hands' after a hearing in September and an Instagram Live on the day that the allegations first surfaced. 'They say that I'm in public with a little girl, that I'm running around with a minor,' Franco said in the social media video in Spanish, per the Tampa Bay Times. 'People don't know what to do with their time. They don't know what they're talking about. 'That's why I prefer to be on my side and not get involved with anybody … because people gossip and talk smack.'

Mankato convicted rapist tries to walk out of the courtroom during sentencing
Mankato convicted rapist tries to walk out of the courtroom during sentencing

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Mankato convicted rapist tries to walk out of the courtroom during sentencing

The Brief A man convicted in a 2015 rape of a 14-year-old girl was sentenced on Monday. Lazarous Lazaro Thomas was sentenced to 30 years behind bars. Thomas attempted to walk out of the courtroom after the sentence was handed down. MANKATO, Minn. (FOX 9) - The man convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Mankato was sentenced to prison on Monday, nearly 10 years after the attack. The backstory Lazarous Lazaro Thomas, 28, was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual assault for the attack that happened in September 2015. Thomas wasn't arrested in the case until eight years after the attack, when there was a DNA match in 2023. He was accused of breaking in through the girl's bedroom window, crawling on top of her, and threatening to kill her if she screamed. What we know In court on Monday, the judge handed down a 30-year sentence for Thomas, who will get credit for nearly two years of time served in jail. The other side Last week, the victim, Chloe Taber, spoke with FOX 9, talking about how the attack had scarred her. "I struggled a lot with doing not so safe things. I ended up getting pregnant at 15. It's another one that I thought was a really weird symptom of it, or sign or whatever, is you would think after being raped that sex and those kind of things would be something that you would want nothing to do with. And I came to find out as I got older that that's not the case. Sometimes they become like victims and survivors become like hypersexual or do things not so safely, which I thought I was crazy for. But I came to find it's more common than we realize. But I did become pregnant at 15. I have a beautiful 8-year-old. She basically saved my life after the fact." What they're saying In court, Taber talked about how the assault changed her forever. "Every night, I triple check that all the doors and windows are locked and shut," she said, "sometimes, getting up again to make sure. After all this time, it still affects me in many ways and will forever, something the defendant will never understand the feeling of. That being said, I believe he should be sentenced to the highest extent, as it's been shown to the state, there's no remorse." When given the chance to speak, Lazaro denied he was responsible for the attack. "I believe that I've been wrongly convicted," Thomas told the judge. "I don't understand how this person can sit up here and say that I did something." After the sentence was handed down, Thomas had to be stopped by deputies from walking out of the court.

SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were ‘Too Many Black Girls'
SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were ‘Too Many Black Girls'

Black America Web

time3 hours ago

  • Black America Web

SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were ‘Too Many Black Girls'

Source: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by a Black dancer in Houston, Texas, who claims she has been discriminated against by several Houston clubs that place limits on how many Black women they will hire to perform. According to The Hill, professional dancer Chanel Nicholson filed her lawsuit in August 2021, claiming the clubs listed as defendants violated a federal law against racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts by limiting the number of Black dancers who could work the same shift as a matter of policy. For example, Nicholson said a manager at the club Cover Girls told her she could not perform at the venue in November 2017 because there were already 'too many Black girls' in the club. She also claimed that, in August 2021, she was told by the manager at a club called Splendor that the club was 'not taking any more Black girls.' Now, off the top, anyone who has been paying attention to the way the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has treated discrimination cases recently might assume Nicholson's suit was dismissed for one (or both) of two reasons: she's a Black woman who is a dancer — so the courts are simply not taking her seriously for reasons rooted in systemic misogynoir — or she's not a white person filing a suit over a DEI policy, as that's pretty much what one has to be to get a federal anti-discrimination claim to shake their way under the current administration. Both of these might have been the real reason the plaintiff's case was dismissed, but the reason a district court gave was that the statute of limitations was up — despite the appearance that it wasn't. From the Hill: Nicholson said she was denied work repeatedly due to the quota, including in 2014, 2017 and 2021. However, her case was dismissed by a district court that concluded the applicable statute of limitations clock began ticking in 2014; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision. She asked the justices to decide when the statute of limitations starts to run in a claim of 'pattern or practice' of racial discrimination. They declined to hear her case. So, how exactly do the courts simply decide the statute of limitations clock started in 2014, and ignore the alleged offenses that happened years later? Well, apparently, all but two justices, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, determined that the more recent discriminatory acts alleged by Nicholson were not acts that stood on their own, but 'continued effects' of past discrimination that is no longer actionable due to the statute. Brown Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion that the court's decision to side with the district court 'flouts this Court's clear precedents.' 'We have long held that '[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,' regardless of whether similar instances of discrimination have occurred in the past,' she wrote. 'Because the Fifth Circuit's contrary ruling was patently erroneous, this Court should have granted Nicholson's petition and summarily reversed the judgment.' Jackson's opinion focused on the allegations from 2017 and 2021, arguing that both alleged 'discrete' instances of discrimination occurred within the four years before Nicholson filed her lawsuit, making the 5th Circuit's claim that the statute of limitations was up 'patently erroneous.' 'To conclude that Nicholson's claims are time-barred because there were earlier instances of discriminatory treatment, as the Fifth Circuit did, impermissibly inoculates the clubs' more recent discriminatory conduct,' Jackson wrote. 'If sustained discriminatory motivation is all that is required to transform recent, racially discriminatory acts into the 'continued effects' of earlier discriminatory conduct, then past discrimination could inexplicably prevent recovery for later, similarly unlawful conduct.' It really makes no sense for a court to conclude that different acts of racism committed by different people at different times are all part of the same 'continued effects' of the first act of racial discrimination. It's almost as if racial discrimination is treated like a trivial thing until white people are filing suits over diversity efforts. We're just basically repackaging white supremacy — that's how we're making America great again. SEE ALSO: Tulsa's 1st Black Mayor Proposes Reparations Plan For Descendants Of Race Massacre, But Will It Work In Trump's America? Op-Ed: Misogynoir Is Why Many Black Women Don't Care That Telvin Osborne's Killer Won't Be Charged SEE ALSO SCOTUS Refuses To Review Discrimination Case By Black Dancer Allegedly Told By Club Owners There Were 'Too Many Black Girls' was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store