Man will spend six years in prison despite jury finding him 'not guilty'

[Deleted]

Pretty sure the judge does not have the power to overrule a jury's verdict? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that makes logical sense to me.

They were different charges.

[Raelbo]

If only that plea had been accepted insted of rejected....

Why? You're assuming he was actually innocent. What basis do you have to make that assumption?

In order to find someone guilty of a charge, it's not about balance of probability, it's about knowing beyond reasonable doubt. What this is means is that you can be 95% certain someone is guilty, but still acquit them because that 5% of doubt is enough to get them off.

It seems to me that the balance of probability is that the guy is actually guilty. So, on balance of probability it's a good thing his plea was rejected, because this way justice is served. Or do you have some reason for believing that he is actually innocent?

[Bryntrollian]

Sorry for pointing out a manipulative headline. If it were Walter L. Whiteman who was wrongfully convicted I'm sure it wouldn't mention his race.

The only Walter L. Whiteman I know just so happens to be a black man as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? You're assuming he was actually innocent. What basis do you have to make that assumption?

In order to find someone guilty of a charge, it's not about balance of probability, it's about knowing beyond reasonable doubt. What this is means is that you can be 95% certain someone is guilty, but still acquit them because that 5% of doubt is enough to get them off.

It seems to me that the balance of probability is that the guy is actually guilty. So, on balance of probability it's a good thing his plea was rejected, because this way justice is served. Or do you have some reason for believing that he is actually innocent?

Innocent because the evidence that is supposed to tie him to the case was absent during his trial ?

[xindralol]

The story doesn't make sense. If he "knew was innocent" then why do any type of alford plea at the beginning? Why the willingness to take an assault charge? Seems like something is missing in this story.

hehehe
well

the article is obvious clickbait :>

obviously they don't incarcerate an innocent man so yeah (also note the naacp garbage at the end of the article)

[Gadion]

Why? You're assuming he was actually innocent. What basis do you have to make that assumption?

In order to find someone guilty of a charge, it's not about balance of probability, it's about knowing beyond reasonable doubt. What this is means is that you can be 95% certain someone is guilty, but still acquit them because that 5% of doubt is enough to get them off.

It seems to me that the balance of probability is that the guy is actually guilty. So, on balance of probability it's a good thing his plea was rejected, because this way justice is served. Or do you have some reason for believing that he is actually innocent?

My problem with that line of thinking is that the probability of being guilty here depends on the subjective feelings of the judge. Unless we're given objective measures that the judge could use to aid in their thinking, we might as well be going on the fact that he didn't like his face.

In my mind there are a few things that actually count in his favour:
He handed himself over to the police upon learning that they were looking for him.
He had complied with the stipulations of his probation up to that point and was dependably employed. Committing the crime would have been an infringement, but he could not be found guilty of that crime.
The witness in the store robbery appears unreliable because she regularly changed her story.

The balance of probability has to have something majorly negative given these factors to suggest that he actually committed the crime.

[Raelbo]

Innocent because the evidence that is supposed to tie him to the case was absent during his trial ?

Didn't you read what I wrote?

The burden of proof in a criminal trial must be beyond any reasonable doubt to prove guilt. Someone can be acquitted even if the probability of innocence is very low.

In other words, just because a court finds someone not guilty, doesn't mean they are definitely innocent. It doesn't even mean that they are probably innocent. Generally speaking a case won't even go to trial unless the probability of guilt is very high to start off with, because if you know upfront that there is anything greater than a very small probability of innocence, the guy will be acquitted and the trial will be a waste of time and resources.

Therefore, a reasonable person should assume that Chatman is more than likely actually guilty and escaped conviction not through innocence, but because that is just the way the law works.

[McFuu]

Something in this seems like the whole story isn't being told.

I'm leaning more towards the judge being a heartless asshole, but there may also be something in play that isn't being spoken about.

[Raelbo]

My problem with that line of thinking is that the probability of being guilty here depends on the subjective feelings of the judge. Unless we're given objective measures that the judge could use to aid in their thinking, we might as well be going on the fact that he didn't like his face.

Sigh. People are not understanding what I am trying to say:

I am not saying that I think the judge should have found him guilty of armed robbery based on probability of guilt. It is quite correct that, given the reasonable element of doubt shown by the defence is sufficient to acquit him of that charge.

That, however, has zero bearing on what the evidence has to say regarding whether he violated his parole conditions. It's quite possible that the evidence shown during his trial, while not sufficient to prove his guilt re: Armed Robbery, was sufficient to prove a parole violation.

But the point I was actually trying to make is that this sympathy for him, on the basis that he is an innocent man who did nothing wrong, is misplaced. On balance of probability he probably is guilty of the crime, so I see no reason to sympathise with him for being caught out on a technicality.

It's like feeling sorry for Al Capone because he was innocent of all the gangster related charges (murder, assault, dealing in contraband, bribery, corruption, etc ect) but nailed for tax fraud. Fact is Al Capone was never innocent, he simply managed to play the legal system. The fact that they eventually managed to convict him for different charges was justice, not bad luck for an innocent guy.

- - - Updated - - -

Got it. If you get charged with a crime you are automatically guilty. Good thing you aren't a judge.

Dude, you're clearly not paying attention to what I am saying. Stop prejudicing my arguments and assuming you know what they are without reading them properly first.

[unbound]

The story doesn't make sense. If he "knew was innocent" then why do any type of alford plea at the beginning? Why the willingness to take an assault charge? Seems like something is missing in this story.

Admitting to doing something wrong when you are innocent is, unfortunately, not an uncommon occurrence. When police grill someone for many hours, they get tired and even get convinced that maybe they were indeed guilty. Best estimates by those who study this issue is between 2% and 8% of convicted felons are in this position.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...ent#.QtQ87rlyj

This is why people need to proudly use their 5th amendment rights and do not talk to the police without a lawyer. Most people don't understand that talking to the police can never, ever help them. 46 minute video should be standard education for everyone. The first 1/2 is a lawyer who advocates the position (and explains why) that you should never talk to the police, and the second 1/2 is a police officer who admits that the lawyer is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[Scathbais]

Yes but black people have been known to be incarcerated at a much higher rather than other races in the US.

That is simply because blacks in the US commit crimes at a much higher rate. Completely irrelevant to the discussion of why the judge might or might not have screwed this young man over.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh. People are not understanding what I am trying to say:

I am not saying that I think the judge should have found him guilty of armed robbery based on probability of guilt. It is quite correct that, given the reasonable element of doubt shown by the defence is sufficient to acquit him of that charge.

That, however, has zero bearing on what the evidence has to say regarding whether he violated his parole conditions. It's quite possible that the evidence shown during his trial, while not sufficient to prove his guilt re: Armed Robbery, was sufficient to prove a parole violation.

But the point I was actually trying to make is that this sympathy for him, on the basis that he is an innocent man who did nothing wrong, is misplaced. On balance of probability he probably is guilty of the crime, so I see no reason to sympathise with him for being caught out on a technicality.

It's like feeling sorry for Al Capone because he was innocent of all the gangster related charges (murder, assault, dealing in contraband, bribery, corruption, etc ect) but nailed for tax fraud. Fact is Al Capone was never innocent, he simply managed to play the legal system. The fact that they eventually managed to convict him for different charges was justice, not bad luck for an innocent guy.

- - - Updated - - -

This sums it up perfectly +1 /end thread

[Raelbo]

I read it properly and you clearly said that if someone is charged it is because they more than likely are guilty. Which is a fantasy.

No. Firstly I never "clearly" said any such thing. I said if the case goes to trial. Secondly, it's mathematically provable given that in the USA the conviction rate currently sits at over 90%. (It's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of people convicted are actually guilty, which means, mathematically, most cases that go to trial are for people who are actually guilty)

What you should note is that at no point in my argument have I tried to argue that just because someone is probably guilty, that they should be convicted. I fully accept that "balance of probability" is not, and should not be sufficient to convict. I fully agree that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement for criminal conviction.

What I am saying however is that just because a court failed to convict someone, that is not a good justification for us to assume actual innocence. Which in this case, means getting all outraged at the "injustice" of what happened.

In other words, on balance of probability, this guy probably deserved to get nailed, even if it was on a technicality. Simply arguing that "the jury found him not guilty" is not nearly enough to convince otherwise.

[Gadion]

Sigh. People are not understanding what I am trying to say:

I am not saying that I think the judge should have found him guilty of armed robbery based on probability of guilt. It is quite correct that, given the reasonable element of doubt shown by the defence is sufficient to acquit him of that charge.

That, however, has zero bearing on what the evidence has to say regarding whether he violated his parole conditions. It's quite possible that the evidence shown during his trial, while not sufficient to prove his guilt re: Armed Robbery, was sufficient to prove a parole violation.

The thing is that all the information we have at our disposal suggests that he was, in fact, also complying with all the stipulations of his parole. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. Based on the information presented to us, he can't be found guilty of this crime and as such it cannot be held to suggest that he violated his parole conditions. More on point, court documents show that he was "... toeing the line on his probation: he paid fines on time, finished community service, and was holding a job." So the court found that he was complying with his probation, on what basis do we then decide that he didn't?

But the point I was actually trying to make is that this sympathy for him, on the basis that he is an innocent man who did nothing wrong, is misplaced. On balance of probability he probably is guilty of the crime, so I see no reason to sympathise with him for being caught out on a technicality.

Again, I have to ask what you're holding as proof to suggest that "On the balance of probability he is probably guilty..."? Probability hinges on evidence, and this evidence was found lacking enough for him to be acquited.
Store cameras couldn't provide an identity for the perpetrator.
There were no fingerprints to link him to the crime.
He wasn't found with any loot or a possible weapon.

At this point we're looking for positive evidence linking him to the crime. The absence of which you cannot reasonably hold he was involved.

The fact that people that could not be nailed for other crimes sometimes get nailed for other offences does not imply that everyone nailed for something is actually liable for any offence you throw at them. Don't get me wrong, I don't exactly feel sympathetic to criminals that finally get caught on unrelated charges. But for you to arrest someone for something, they have to actually be guilty of *something*. In this case, the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted for an initial offense, but appears to have been in compliance with reformatory behaviour.

- - - Updated - - -

That is simply because blacks in the US commit crimes at a much higher rate. Completely irrelevant to the discussion of why the judge might or might not have screwed this young man over.

- - - Updated - - -



This sums it up perfectly +1 /end thread

As aimed at my esteemed compatriot: What evidence suggests that he was not complying with his parole conditions?

[Ivanstone]

Please stop your race baiting bullshit.
A white guy can be a thug, a orange guy can be a thug (trump) a Chinese guy can be a thug.
Just because you have some shitty agenda in your head doesn't mean all of us do.

Uh huh. A black man got a disproportionately large jail sentence relative to his crime in the not so great state of Georgia. It does look a hair suspicious.

And weirdly you almost never see white people referred to as thugs in the media. I wonder why.

[Scathbais]

As aimed at my esteemed compatriot: What evidence suggests that he was not complying with his parole conditions?

There is none in either way. As the other poster pointed out, we do not have the information to make ANY judgement in this case.

Saying that the defendant did everything asked of his parole conditions (community service, meetings with parole officers, etc) is not the same thing as saying he didn't do something during the incident he was on trial for that violating his parole.

Simply stated: we don't have any of the testimony and evidence presented during the trial to reach any conclusion as to whether the judges actions were just or not.

[zenkai]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7744326.html

I think private prison CEOs should pay for programs in the inner city that fight the glorification of gang culture and anti intellectualism as well as promote science, technology, and cool looking spaceships!

The judge and this so called jury do not want to make the world a better place! They don't want to better humanity! And they certainly don't an interstellar future for humanity!

They need a good space opera!

Did you not even read the first paragraph?

A black man who was found not guilty of armed robbery will still serve up to seven years behind bars after a judge ruled he had breached the rules of his probation sentence for another crime.

People falling for click bait journalism again.

[Dangg]

Obviously a thug.

Breaks into someones home to steal stuff. How is he not a thug?

[Gadion]

There is none in either way. As the other poster pointed out, we do not have the information to make ANY judgement in this case.

Saying that the defendant did everything asked of his parole conditions (community service, meetings with parole officers, etc) is not the same thing as saying he didn't do something during the incident he was on trial for that violating his parole.

Simply stated: we don't have any of the testimony and evidence presented during the trial to reach any conclusion as to whether the judges actions were just or not.

Which is part of what I'm suggesting myself. We need more information. On this note, you cannot conclude the he must have done something if you have no evidence to suggest as much. Particularly given that we have evidence that show to the contrary.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you not even read the first paragraph?

A black man who was found not guilty of armed robbery will still serve up to seven years behind bars after a judge ruled he had breached the rules of his probation sentence for another crime.

People falling for click bait journalism again.

Reading the same article further, also shows that he was found, by court, to have complied with all the stipulations for his parole.

[Raelbo]

The thing is that all the information we have at our disposal suggests that he was, in fact, also complying with all the stipulations of his parole. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

The judge disagrees with you. But yeah sure, I suppose we should hold your opinion in equal regard

Based on the information presented to us, he can't be found guilty of this crime

True, but I don't see the relevance...

and as such it cannot be held to suggest that he violated his parole conditions.

Faulty logic. Just because he cannot be found guilty of committing the crime in question doesn't mean he can't be found guilty of violating his parole conditions. Presumably there is some evidence from this trial which demonstrates he broke some parole condition.

More on point, court documents show that he was "... toeing the line on his probation: he paid fines on time, finished community service, and was holding a job." So the court found that he was complying with his probation, on what basis do we then decide that he didn't?

According to his grandmother, Janice, he complied with some parole conditions, and according to her, there are "court papers" to back that up. But that doesn't mean that he didn't break some other parole condition. Maybe he was shown to be somewhere he was not supposed to be, or out past a curfew, or handling a firearm. Who knows? Clearly the judge does, but great biased journalism doesn't really bother to try and present those facts. Why? Because the value of the news story lies in creating sympathy for this character, not in presenting all the facts in an unbiased manner.

Again, I have to ask what you're holding as proof to suggest that "On the balance of probability he is probably guilty..."? Probability hinges on evidence, and this evidence was found lacking enough for him to be acquited.

1) because balance of probability is not sufficient to convict, a lack of conviction does not disprove balance of probability
2) cases don't go to trial unless the balance of probability suggests guilt

At this point we're looking for positive evidence linking him to the crime. The absence of which you cannot reasonably hold he was involved.

There was lots of evidence, but it wasn't sufficiently clear to rule out a reasonable doubt. In other words, he was probably involved.

But for you to arrest someone for something, they have to actually be guilty of *something*.

To arrest someone for something the police have to have probable cause. In other words, there must be some evidence suggesting that they are guilty. They could, however, actually be totally innocent. The question of guilt is argued in a court of law, which only happens if, after a full investigation, guilt still seems probable. To convict someone, the courts need to be certain of actual guilt.

In this case, the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted for an initial offense, but appears to have been in compliance with reformatory behaviour.

According to his grandmother. I am sure she is a totally reliable source....

As aimed at my esteemed compatriot: What evidence suggests that he was not complying with his parole conditions?

It's not my job to know the law. That's the job of the judge.
I don't have the facts of the case, other than what the media have given us (which seem to be very biased and sensational). But the judge does.

Therefore, the judge really is in the best position of anyone to assess whether the defendant is in violation of his parole. I would be interested to know what makes you believe you're a higher authority than the judge on this?

(PS: Yes, this is an argument of authority. But it's not a fallacy since a judge is, in fact, the correct authority)

[Ivanstone]

Breaks into someones home to steal stuff. How is he not a thug?

Did a bad thing once in his life. Meets the terms of his punishment and cleans up his life. Obviously not a thug.

And even if he is actually guilty of his crime, his punishment is far in disproportion to his crime. Its unfair to him and its unfair to the citizens of Georgia who have to pay for his prison sentence.

[Raelbo]

A case going to trial doesn't mean someone is guilty.

I never said it was. I find your attempts to put words in my mouth to be disingenuous.

I am saying that a case going to trial means it is probable that someone is guilty.

Your assumptions are ridiculous and based in fantasy.

I have substantiated my assumptions. You have not. So I'll counter with: Your assertions are ridiculous and based in fantasy, fueled by your bias.

The balance of evidence and the jury finding him not guilty means he was not guilty.

Firstly, what exactly is "balance of evidence"? It's a phrase that seems like nonsense to me. I am talking about "balance of probability", which has fuck all to do with the jury finding, because jury findings are not about "balance of probability" they're about proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, finding someone not guilty does not mean they are actually not guilty. It simply means that the evidence was not sufficient to convict someone and punish them for the crime. Guilty people regularly get away with their crimes, not because they're innocent, but because the system was unable to prove that guilt to a sufficient degree.

A judge decided to usurp the power of the jury.

No he did not. To assert as much is to distort the facts. The effect may be the same (ie Chatman goes back to jail) but the mechanism is very different.

That is troubling to say the least. Your defense is a head scratcher. Get over your prejudice.

Dude, I am taking a strictly neutral stance on this, by looking at the law and how it was applied. You're the one showing prejudice by assuming this has to do with racism. As others have already said, the article is click bait, intended to ellicit an emotional response from people by giving a very one sided, somewhat inaccurate portrayal of the situation because that is what sells news. And you fell for it. Luckily some of us have our heads screwed on right and can look at these things dispassionately.

Look, I might be wrong. Maybe this guy was set up by the judge. And I am sure that over the course of the next few months the real facts will come to light. And what I am saying is that, on balance of probability it will turn out that this guy did break his parole conditions, and of course we won't hear about it in the media, because that's not nearly as evocative as a story about a person who has been screwed by the system.

PS: What I would also note as interesting is that the defendant was not acquitted based on any evidence that he didn't commit the crime. He was acquitted because the evidence against him wasn't strong enough. The video evidence couldn't say for certain that it was him, even if it looked a lot like him. The witness couldn't convince the jury of her certainty that he was the same guy who pointed a gun in her face, because she was inconsistent about other details, which actually are completely irrelevant.

And think about this: The witness recognised him on facebook. What are the odds that among the thousands of faces you see every month on facebook, that the one that you are convinced is the person who stuck a gun in your face actually lives in the right area, doesn't have an alibi, and is a convicted felon?

So yeah, I am going to continue assuming that he is probably guilty, and as such I am not going to get myself worked up into SJW mode to defend him on the internetz. I'll save my righteousness indignation for someone who probably deserves it. Until then I'll leave it to the law who, honestly, are far more competent than you or I to assess the situation.