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

[Seranthor]

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.

Reading the article I see that he committed a prior Breaking and Entering, and was serving probation for that... then a incident occurred, he turned himself in on the new allegation and the jury found him not guilty of the new incident, however, the judge determined that he violated his probation on the original Breaking and Entering... and he was sentenced for THAT.

I know you read the article, however, it appears that many above you didn't bother reading it.

[Barnabas]

Except there was also this:

Except if you are on probation and get "accused" of another crime that is enough to revoke your probation. Which is what happened here. Which is why the guy tried an alfred plea from the start and most likely why the journalist didn't include that because it doesn't fit the narrative. There really is nothing more to discuss here.

[Endus]

Reading the article I see that he committed a prior Breaking and Entering, and was serving probation for that... then a incident occurred, he turned himself in on the new allegation and the jury found him not guilty of the new incident, however, the judge determined that he violated his probation on the original Breaking and Entering... and he was sentenced for THAT.

I know you read the article, however, it appears that many above you didn't bother reading it.

See my post. What he saw as "violating his probation" was his theory (unproven) that Chatman committed the armed robbery, that he was later found innocent of.

Since the Judge's rationale is false, Chatman needs to be released.

[Ivanstone]

Uh, look at the first sentence.

He's going to jail for another crime.

He's not actually. He never violated his probation. The judge decided that he did. That's it. So he is either imprisoned for a $120 TV he tried to steal in 2012 or is going to prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

[dextersmith]

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!

What are you saying?

[Masark]

No, he isn't. From all accounts he never violated the rules of his probation

The judge is claiming that being charged with a crime (even if not convicted) is a violation of his probation.

[Ivanstone]

Except if you are on probation and get "accused" of another crime that is enough to revoke your probation. Which is what happened here. Which is why the guy tried an alfred plea from the start and most likely why the journalist didn't include that because it doesn't fit the narrative. There really is nothing more to discuss here.

Hope your satisfied with the idea that the state of Georgia is going to fork out $500-600 hundred thousand dollars to lock up a dude who attempted to steal a TV worth $120.

[Calfredd]

Except if you are on probation and get "accused" of another crime that is enough to revoke your probation. Which is what happened here. Which is why the guy tried an alfred plea from the start and most likely why the journalist didn't include that because it doesn't fit the narrative. There really is nothing more to discuss here.

It's a good thing that article did say he tried to enter an alford plea then.

[Barnabas]

Hope your satisfied with the idea that the state of Georgia is going to fork out $500-600 hundred thousand dollars to lock up a dude who attempted to steal a TV worth $120.

I'm not satisfied with this at all. I'm just pointing out that the narrative in the OP is false.

[Sesshou]

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.

Actually they do have the authority. Apparently the standard of proof to revoke parole is just "likely" and not "beyond reasonable doubt." So if the judge decided it was "likely" he committed the crime (having done so violates his parole), he can revoke the parole even if a jury couldn't convict him beyond reasonable doubt.

The revocation hearing isn't the same as a trial. The burden of proof for the prosecution is typically not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Rather, it's something less, such as having to prove that, "more likely than not," the violation took place. Because the burden of proof is less than at a trial, a probationer might face what could seem to be inconsistent results: If the probation violation is the commission of a new crime and the probationer is acquitted of that crime, he can nevertheless have his probation revoked. In essence, probation is a privilege that can be lost more easily than one’s initial freedom.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...evocation.html

[Barnabas]

It's a good thing that article did say he tried to enter an alford plea then.

Probably in hopes his probation violation wouldn't put his butt in prison for 10 years? It didn't happen so here we are.

[purebalance]

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.

I was thinking the same thing. The judge revoked his probation on account of him trying for an Alford plea. There is no injustice here. He's serving time for a crime he already did in fact commit.

[Sesshou]

See my post. What he saw as "violating his probation" was his theory (unproven) that Chatman committed the armed robbery, that he was later found innocent of.

Since the Judge's rationale is false, Chatman needs to be released.

You do realize a jury does not find someone innocent right? The violation doesn't have to be "proven" either. He just has to rule that it was more likely than not.

I mean yes, it sounds like the guy quite likely got screwed over. I didn't hear the arguments though. I bet you didn't either. Maybe you did, and after hearing the full arguments of both sides, do not consider it likely?

[Calfredd]

Probably in hopes his probation violation wouldn't put his butt in prison for 10 years? It didn't happen so here we are.

I don't understand your issue then. Man is on probation and hasn't done anything to violate it. Man is accused of armed robbery and turns himself in when he realizes it. Man tries to enter an Alford plea but judge says no. Man goes to court and is found not guilty. Judge says no and uses the accusation to sentence the man under violation of parole.

[purebalance]

See my post. What he saw as "violating his probation" was his theory (unproven) that Chatman committed the armed robbery, that he was later found innocent of.

Since the Judge's rationale is false, Chatman needs to be released.

No he doesn't need to be. He attempted to put in an Alford plea which was evidence enough for the judge to revoke the probation. The revocation happened before the trial and it was due to the plea being attempted. Sorry no victim card today.

[bewbew]

Race baiting, then people commenting how this is more of an issue than imigration being behind frequent terrorism.

Nice.

[Barnabas]

I don't understand your issue then. Man is one probation and hasn't done anything to violate it. Man is accused of armed robbery and turns himself in when he realizes it. Man tries to enter an Alford plea but judge says no. Man goes to court and is found not guilty. Judge says no and uses the accusation to sentence the man under violation of parole.

Being accused of another crime is a violation. That's what you don't get. Just the fact your name comes up is enough. I'd like to see this changed that you have to be convicted before your original probation can be revoked.

[Ivanstone]

I was thinking the same thing. The judge revoked his probation on account of him trying for an Alford plea. There is no injustice here. He's serving time for a crime he already did in fact commit.

People take Alford plea's because its often the easiest way of getting on with your life.

And going to jail for 10 years for the attempted theft of a $120 TV is an injustice.

[purebalance]

I don't understand your issue then. Man is one probation and hasn't done anything to violate it. Man is accused of armed robbery and turns himself in when he realizes it. Man tries to enter an Alford plea but judge says no. Man goes to court and is found not guilty. Judge says no and uses the accusation to sentence the man under violation of parole.

That is not the order it happened in so stop trying to paint it that way. The article CLEARLY says the judge revoked his parole BEFORE the trial, but after he denied the Alford plea.

So it really went this way: Man gets out on probation. Man sees he's accused of crime and turns himself in. Man thinks he can't win the case so he tries to put in an Alford plea. The judge denies the plea and says "ok so you were ready to plea essentially guilty so your parole is revoked." The man ends up being found not guilty in court.

Oh by the way also just like the people who want to cry about "rape culture" the same thing applies here: Not guilty does not mean innocent.

[ujx]

I like the new title.