Found 'Not Guilty' by a jury of his peers, man still sent to jail.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by JayMysterio, May 24, 2017.

  1. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #1
    http://www.11alive.com/news/local/serving-10-years-after-not-guilty-verdict/440450636

    :mad:

    A more opinionated reporting of the story...

    http://www.theroot.com/black-man-found-not-guilty-of-crime-still-sentenced-to-1795475956

     
  2. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
  3. JayMysterio thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #3
    Depends.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  5. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #5
    The hail? I didn't know a judge could ignore a jury verdict. Apparently they can (judgment non obstante veredicto)...but only if it's a guilty verdict. The man was found NOT guilty by a jury. JNOV is not allowed.

    Someone broke the law here and it wasn't the defendant.
     
  6. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #6
    Sarcasm ;)
     
  7. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #7
    The judge didn't overturn the jury verdict.
    He revoked his probation from the prior conviction because the judge believed he likely did commit the crime even though he was found innocent by a jury.
    Chatman has grounds to appeal this revocation and if he can find the right attorney, go after the judge for judicial misconduct.
     
  8. JayMysterio, May 24, 2017
    Last edited: May 24, 2017

    JayMysterio thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #8
    No one said the judge overturned a jury verdict. The judge ignored the jury's verdict after forcing a trial.

    The issue is that the Judge had the power to just revoke his probation on his own belief despite wanting & forcing Chatman to go to trial, then being found not guilty by that trial. It does give the perception that the judge himself may have a had a predisposition of Chatman's guilt.
    --- Post Merged, May 24, 2017 ---
    Unfortunately I knew that, I was just stating the sad truth.
     
  9. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    ... on how much money you got. The land of the free is pretty expensive...
     
  10. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #10
    Just further proof that the so-called "justice system" in this country is irrevocably broken.
     
  11. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #11
    Considering he was doing everything right, I think he should remain out free on probation. I don't think he's guilty either, although admittedly that is based on nothing other than the article, and news reporting is often crap.

    However, he is serving a sentence for a crime he committed, not the crime he didn't commit.
     
  12. JayMysterio thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #12
    So basically Chatman got boned for turning himself in as a good citizen, while on probation. Which would eventually lead judge who decided his guilt despite a jury and evidence saying otherwise. When he offered to take a plea deal as to avoid risking his chances, the judge denied that. So when the trial didn't turn a conviction, the judge decided to revoke the probation he was serving anyways. In short, Chatman may have been better off not being a good citizen and turning himself in hoping to work with the system.

    Chatman would be done with probation this year, instead he's NOW expected to serve the full time, irregardless of his probation to 2022. For what? If that happened to you, what would be your opinion of the system then? Just consider you made a mistake in life, you're paying for that mistake, and someone just decided to wipe that away seemingly because they can. Just to add to the whole outrage parade, compare yourself to a college swimmer actually convicted of rape...

    5 ( Ignoring his time already serving probation it seems ) years for stealing a tv, 2 years for rape?! Only to be let out early because it may have a 'severe impact' on the rapist! :mad:
     
  13. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #13
    He was sentenced for a violation of probation of the old conviction.

    The violation of probation was for the new criminal offense which he was acquitted of. Acquitted is not a declaration of innocence.

    The standard to convict is beyond reasonable doubt.

    The standard to violate probation for the old crime is preponderance.

    It's understandable how most people find is outrageous but it's not new at all. Even appeals courts have held their nose but not overturned a judges decision.

    Maybe someday. Just not today.
    --- Post Merged, May 24, 2017 ---
    Pfftt. Hardly.
     
  14. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #14
    Did you miss the part where I said I think he should remain out free on probation? Because I feel like you're trying to convince me of something I already believe.
     
  15. JayMysterio thread starter macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #15
    Which is the crux of the outrage. What was Chatman's parole violation?

    He wasn't found guilty of the crime he went to trial for. A trial he did try to plea to, and the judge denied it. When evidence was lacking, witness questionable, the jury decided not guilty. The judge disagreed with their verdict. Based on his decision of Chatman's guilt, instead a jury of his peers, the judge decided he violated his parole.

    A judge decided Chatman's guilt, not a jury of his peers. Seemingly a trial he tried to avoid, but the judge wasn't having it. When the trial did not find him guilty, the judge wasn't having that either. You can see how this doesn't look well?


    No. It's a question in general for anyone. There's often a narrative based around wondering why some individuals do not have the same faith in our legal institutions they have. Never acknowledging that their experience with the legal system may not be the same as everyone else's.
     
  16. Gutwrench, May 24, 2017
    Last edited: May 24, 2017

    Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #16
    I told you.

    The new offense -- for which he was rolled up for -- was the crime he was acquired on.

    There may not have been enough evidence to convict on the new offense but sufficient evidence to convince a judge to violate his probation for his earlier conviction.

    Again, don't confuse a not guilty verdict as innocent. It's not. It means just that: not guilty.

    You're not alone in feeling it sounds odd, but this isn't a new concept.

    He was on probation not parole. That doesn't matter for this topic but just so you know.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    We'd have to see what his rap sheet looks like, just being involved in activities that might be considered criminal is enough to get your probation taken away.

    If this was a first offense and he got 5 years for stealing a 120 dollar tv I'll eat my shoe.
     
  18. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #18
    It was a first offense. He didn't get 5 years in jail.
    It was a special program where first offenders get 5 years probation instead of any jail time.

    This article has a slightly different take on the thing.
    http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com...cle_ecef4f12-629a-11e6-a2c6-b328edb1ad2c.html

    The probation revocation didn't come after the jury verdict like this thread implies.
    It came immediately after the arrest because getting arrested is in itself a violation of the terms of probation.

    It seems like a badly written law that the judge was following but he was following the law.
    Very unfortunate.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    Stealing the television wouldn't have been his first offense because it was a break and enter job and not shoplifting. 5 years probation still sounds excessive.
     

Share This Page