Verdict Reached in Super Bowl Reporter’s Death

Police cars block a city intersection with yellow crime scene tape — Photo: Steve Sanchez Photos / Shutterstock

A Louisiana jury convicted one defendant of negligent homicide and both of racketeering in a tourist-targeting scheme that ended with a Super Bowl reporter dead.

Story Snapshot

Jurors found Danette Colbert guilty of negligent homicide in Adan Manzano’s death.
Colbert and Rickey White were both convicted of racketeering tied to targeting tourists.
White was acquitted of manslaughter, creating a split verdict on homicide charges.
Defense plans an appeal and called the outcome a “compromise verdict”.

What The Jury Decided And Why It Matters

On September 17, a Jefferson Parish jury found Danette Colbert guilty of negligent homicide in the death of 27-year-old reporter Adan Manzano, who was in the New Orleans area for the 2025 Super Bowl. Jurors also convicted Colbert and co-defendant Rickey White of racketeering, which prosecutors tied to a scheme that targeted vulnerable visitors for theft and drugging. The jury acquitted White of manslaughter, signaling a line between enterprise participation and direct proof of causing the death.

Prosecutors said digital evidence showed planning and pattern. Local coverage reported expert testimony about cellphone extractions and text messages between Colbert and White that discussed potential victims, so-called “knockout drugs,” and what was taken from prior targets. The district attorney framed the case as a criminal enterprise preying on tourists, a message that aligns with both convictions for racketeering and the lesser homicide count for Colbert. That structure fits how juries often parse complex, multi-count cases.

The Medical Evidence And The Causation Hurdle

Trial reporting described medical testimony that Manzano had a high blood alcohol level and alprazolam, a generic Xanax, in his system, with death linked to positional asphyxia. That evidence supports impairment and a dangerous posture, but it can leave room for doubt about intent or direct administration of drugs. Defense counsel argued there was no proof Colbert gave Manzano Xanax and said jurors should not assume that step happened. The split verdict reflects those limits.

Defense attorneys also pushed back on the homicide narrative by citing uncertainty in official classifications. One report noted testimony that the manner of death was listed as “undetermined,” which can weaken a clean homicide theory at trial. That kind of medical ambiguity often leads juries to land on lesser-included offenses. Here, the jury chose negligent homicide rather than manslaughter for Colbert and cleared White on the homicide count, even while finding both guilty of racketeering.

How The Defense And Prosecution Framed The Enterprise

Prosecutors painted a picture of coordination and profit, arguing that Colbert and White worked together to find, drug, and rob. The racketeering verdicts suggest jurors accepted a pattern of conduct and a shared plan. White’s attorney countered that the pair were “petty thieves,” not part of an organized operation, which was meant to undercut the enterprise charge and reframe the case as smaller, opportunistic crimes rather than a structured scheme. Jurors disagreed on that point.

A woman was found guilty of negligent homicide in connection with the death of Adan Manzano, a sports reporter killed while covering Super Bowl LIX in 2025.

READ MORE >>> https://t.co/gOkZYBG0Mh pic.twitter.com/mBd4RWKRAL

— WTVY News 4 (@WTVYNews4) September 18, 2026

After the verdict, Colbert’s lawyer said he will appeal and called the negligent-homicide decision a “compromise verdict” between jurors who wanted acquittal and those seeking harsher punishment. Appeals are common after split outcomes. Still, the current legal standing is clear: one negligent-homicide conviction and two racketeering convictions. Sentencing will test whether the enterprise findings drive the punishment, since racketeering often carries significant exposure alongside any homicide term.

The Bigger Picture: Safety, Trust, And A System Under Strain

This case taps broad worries that cut across politics. Travelers fear predatory crime in busy tourist zones. Families want clear answers when a loved one dies far from home. Citizens doubt whether the justice system can sort complex medical evidence and digital trails fast and fairly. The jury’s careful split shows a system trying to draw firm lines: punish coordinated schemes, but reserve higher homicide findings for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is slow, imperfect work, but it still matters.