Originally Posted by
Endus
Judge A, ruling on this guy's probation, decided he'd probably committed the newer armed robbery, and ruled that doing so breached his probation, and sent him back to prison on the charge he was originally granted probation for. This was in February.
Then, in August, the trial for the newer armed robbery actually happened, and he was found not guilty. Meaning the first judge clearly acted unjustly, and at the very least, the guy needs to be released and put back on probation. Even if the first judge was ensuring Chatman was around to stand trial by cancelling his probation, the second judge should not have any authority to refuse to release Chatman after the jury verdict came down.