Independent: Black man will spend six years in Georgia prison despite jury finding him 'not guilty'

[Bozo the kKklown]

Independent: Black man will spend six years in Georgia prison despite jury finding him 'not guilty'

 

Quote

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. 

 

Ramad Chatman handed himself in to police when he found out he was a suspect for an armed robbery at a convenience store in his hometown of Georgia in July 2014. 

 

"He turned himself in because he knew he was not guilty," his grandmother Janice Chatman told US news channel 11Alive.

 

The 24-year-old was already was serving a five year probation term (a court order served outside prison through fines and community service) for his first ever offence, breaking and entering an apartment to steal a television worth $120 (£92) in 2012.

 

He was identified as a suspect for the armed robbery in the winter of 2014 after the shop assistant spotted his picture on Facebook. She identified him again when police showed her his driving licence picture.

 

Quite why it took police so long to catch up with Chatman is unclear, but after hearing officers were looking for him, he turned himself in in November 2015. 

The following February, a judge decided it was likely he did commit the robbery and as a result Chatman was re-sentenced for the original crime of stealing a TV and ordered to serve 10-years behind bars, back dated to the day of the crime.  

 

Court documents nonetheless showed he did everything asked of him during his probation, including checking in, paying restitution and finishing his community service. He was also holding down a job.

 

But when the armed robbery trial came to court in August, he was found not guilty.

It later emerged that ahead of the trial Chapman tried to enter an Alford plea on the charge of aggravated assault in exchange for the armed robbery charges being dropped. 

 

An Alford plea means the defendant enters a guilty plea, but maintains his innocence.  It is often used when a defendant feels like despite his innocence, he will lose at trial. 

 

The judge refused to accept the deal, so the case was heard before a jury - who ruled he was innocent of the crime. 

 

Horrible, racist, and an injustice.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I read this yesterday.  Brutal.

[Springfield]

A jury doesn't rule innocence.  But that's not really the point.

 

Was he found guilty of the b/i?  It wasn't clear.

[Riggo-toni]

Well if Sessions is forced to resign, now we know whom Donald will appoint to replace him....

[Bozo the kKklown]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Was he found guilty of the b/i?  It wasn't clear.

The only thing he was ever found guilty of was stealing that TV as a 19 year old, where he was given 5 years probation.

 

He was sentenced to 7 years in prison for violating his probation for a crime he did not commit.

[Mooka]

Only thing that went wrong in this situation is this guy got a trail and a verdict was reached. 

 

Once we get rid of that pesky process we can fix the criminal justice system and lock up more bad people. 

 

- Jeff Sessions

[Busch1724]

What is missing from this story? Something doesn't seem to add up. While reading the story, many questions and comments.

 

Is there mandatory minimum sentencing for probation violations?

 

Also the resentencing of the TV crime (which is mentioned in the article) is something that is confusing to me too. Is this cmmon?

 

How common is it that a judge overrules a jury's decision?

 

What rationale would the judge have to overturn a jury's verdict? 

[skinny21]

What in the Hell?

[Bozo the kKklown]

5 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

What is missing from this story? Something doesn't seem to add up. While reading the story, many questions and comments.

 

Is there mandatory minimum sentencing for probation violations?

 

Also the resentencing of the TV crime (which is mentioned in the article) is something that is confusing to me too. Is this cmmon?

 

How common is it that a judge overrules a jury's decision?

 

What rationale would the judge have to overturn a jury's verdict? 

you forgot the portion about him being black. 
 

[Destino]

He's a hard worker just trying to keep his nose clean?  Sounds like an excellent addition to the Ju$tice systems cheap (forced) labor workforce.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

My first thought was also that something isn't adding up here.

[Mooka]

12 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

What is missing from this story? Something doesn't seem to add up. While reading the story, many questions and comments.

 

This is more a result of the failures of the overall system then specifically this one person. This one guy just got the shaft like lots of folks do. 

 

The judge ruled he violated his probation before the jury trial, he didn't specifically over-rule their verdict. He probably did that because he assumed, like 99.99999% of the time, that this guy wouldn't get a trail and would eventually plea out for the crime. 

 

But the guy got a trial and was found innocent. 

[Kosher Ham]

The man being black is irrelevant. 

[HOF44]

Our criminal justice system is screwed unless you have money.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

8 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

The man being black is irrelevant. 

No it isn't.

[techboy]

I understand how this can happen in theory... I'm pretty sure the burden of proof for a judge to determine a parole violation is different than that for a jury to convict someone for a crime, in that a judge doesn't need to determine it happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That would leave it possible for there to be enough evidence for a judge to find parole violated by the commission of a crime, but not enough evidence for the jury to actually convict.

 

Still, it sucks and hopefully the media attention will cause something to overturn this in some way.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

So the part that I either missed or was omitted in the article was that there were actually two separate trials here. One was the criminal trial for the convenience store robbery and the other was the parole revocation hearing. He was found not guilty in one but in the other, the judge determined that he did commit the armed robbery. Fair system? I don't know. I guess that's what's been in place for a long time. Is it much different than criminal and civil trials?

 

Fair ruling? All I know is that one of them was right and one of them was wrong. If he committed the armed robbery, then it was fair. If he didn't, obviously not. I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer based off of 30 seconds of reading.

[Chew]

52 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The only thing he was ever found guilty of was stealing that TV as a 19 year old, where he was given 5 years probation.

 

He was sentenced to 7 years in prison for violating his probation for a crime he did not commit.

 

I don't even know what to say....

 

'Murica?

[Bang]

Seems utterly stupid to enter and Alford plea, which is saying that while you admit no guilt, you acknowledge the prosecution can prove it's case.

To cop an Alford because you feel like you're being railroaded is to throw the engineer off the train and railroad yourself.

His lawyer needs to be examined, or the circumstances of the plea need to be examined.

Innocent people don't typically take Alford's without REALLY bad advice.

 

Where did the charge of aggravated assault come from?

 

~Bang

[Gamebreaker]

57 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

What is missing from this story? Something doesn't seem to add up. While reading the story, many questions and comments.

 

Is there mandatory minimum sentencing for probation violations?

 

Also the resentencing of the TV crime (which is mentioned in the article) is something that is confusing to me too. Is this cmmon?

 

How common is it that a judge overrules a jury's decision?

 

What rationale would the judge have to overturn a jury's verdict? 

 

In my mind, I think I answered "it's Georgia" for every question. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

10 minutes ago, Bang said:

Seems utterly stupid to enter and Alford plea, which is saying that while you admit no guilt, you acknowledge the prosecution can prove it's case.

To cop an Alford because you feel like you're being railroaded is to throw the engineer off the train and railroad yourself.

His lawyer needs to be examined, or the circumstances of the plea need to be examined.

Innocent people don't typically take Alford's without REALLY bad advice.

 

Where did the charge of aggravated assault come from?

 

~Bang

re-read the article.

 

He tried but the judge did not let him.

 

 

But really, a lot of people cop pleas to crimes they did not commit. Thats unfortunately how our criminal justice system works. Its broken.

[Gamebreaker]

48 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

The man being black is irrelevant. 

 

So you can find a similar case and result for someone of a different race? 

15 minutes ago, Bang said:

Seems utterly stupid to enter and Alford plea, which is saying that while you admit no guilt, you acknowledge the prosecution can prove it's case.

To cop an Alford because you feel like you're being railroaded is to throw the engineer off the train and railroad yourself.

His lawyer needs to be examined, or the circumstances of the plea need to be examined.

Innocent people don't typically take Alford's without REALLY bad advice.

 

Where did the charge of aggravated assault come from?

 

~Bang

 

If that is the case, he may get the judge's decision overturned in an appeal due to ineffective assistance. Seems pretty easy to prove in this case, but I question whether a second judge will overturn in Georgia.  

[Bang]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

re-read the article.

 

He tried but the judge did not let him.

 

 

But really, a lot of people cop pleas to crimes they did not commit. Thats unfortunately how our criminal justice system works. Its broken.

It certainly looks as if this Judge Neidrich has way overstepped..  I see what you say, he basically threw out a jury's verdict and decided all on his own that he "likely committed the crime".. .which is completely ridiculous and very MUCH smacks of racism. I don't even see how he can legally do that. 

I'd still like to know where the charge of aggravated assault originated.. is it part of the charges in the robbery he was acquitted of by a jury?

If so, shouldn't it lso be part of the acquittal?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me either we don't know everything, or it is definitely something the higher powers need to be looking at. Seems this guy is getting his life stolen from him. Can judges toss out jury verdicts? (On appeal i suppose so, but the state can't appeal an acquittal, it's the definition of double jeopardy, right? )

Where's some of our ES lawyers. I'd like to know what sort of legal standing this has.

 

~Bang

[TimmySmith]

1 hour ago, Busch1724 said:

What is missing from this story? Something doesn't seem to add up. While reading the story, many questions and comments.

 

Numbers don't add up because the story is missing some facts.

 

What we know.

 

2012 Commits crime, we have to assume he was not sentenced but received 5 years probation.

2014 Accused of seperate crime

2016 Found that he probably didn't commit the second crime.

2017?  Sentenced to 5 years for original crime.  

 

[Busch1724]

2 hours ago, Bang said:

I see what you say, he basically threw out a jury's verdict and decided all on his own that he "likely committed the crime".. .which is completely ridiculous and very MUCH smacks of racism.

 

This is the part that really hung me up while reading the article. I just can't see a legal way this could be done without some kind of extenuating circumstance. What could that possibly be? Obviously, what is presented in the article is a heinous lack of justice in our criminal justice system. If this is an act of racist sentencing from the bench, he must be sacked. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt before casting judgement, and that's why I'm wondering what we are missing...if anything.