Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 25 2017, @10:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-lives-matter dept.

A 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.

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 in 2012.

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[sic] 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.

Presiding Judge John Niedrach, disagreed with their verdict however.

So despite the fact police never recovered the weapon, stolen money, or any other evidence connecting him to the robbery, he declined to release Mr Chatman, who remains in prison for violating the terms of his first probation order.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-man-prison-serve-five-years-ramad-chatman-georgia-prison-not-guilty-probation-broke-terms-jail-a7744326.html


Original Submission[Edit: [sic]'ed the Independent's typo - FP]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:51PM (6 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:51PM (#515482)

    Guy gets sentenced to community service, which he does
    Guy gets falsely accused of a different crime
    He tries to plead to a lesser crime to avoid a bunch of jail time
    Judge denies
    Found innocent because there's no evidence whatsoever he's guilty of the second crime
    Judge disagrees but can't put him in prison, so keeps him on the parole violation that there is no evidence for either

    Man, these judge(s) really have it out for this dude.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:14PM (5 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:14PM (#515590) Journal

    He tries to plead to a lesser crime to avoid a bunch of jail time

    Did he have a lawyer? If so he got some stupid bad legal advice.

    He did plead to a lesser crime, aggravated assault, (which would automatically violate his parole), whether or not that plea was accepted, its pretty much an admission that he committed a crime.

    You violate your parole you go directly back to jail and server your original term. He wasn't "re-sentenced". His parole was simply revoked.

    The reporting here is atrocious, and its from the UK which probably means the reporter has a vague grasp of US Law, probably from tv shows.

     

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:25PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:25PM (#515600)

      Ahhhhh...okay now the whole thing is staggering back into the vicinity of making any kind of sense.

      But if he was acquitted of the second crime, it sounds like the logic for increasing the punishment on the first can only really be "that n****r just gotta be guilty."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:28PM (#515606)

        He did plead to a lesser crime, aggravated assault, (which would automatically violate his parole), whether or not that plea was accepted

        Well that's just cold. I can see how he expected to get convicted, though...considering he was on parole from a previous offense, I'd bet another jury would throw the book at him, too. And he's black.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:34PM (#515721)

          I see you have taken frojack at his word.
          You shouldn't do that. The guy is a total bullshitter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:00PM (#515699)

      That's some mighty fine lawyerin', son.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @11:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @11:33PM (#515747)

      He did plead to a lesser crime, aggravated assault, (which would automatically violate his parole), whether or not that plea was accepted,

      Geez frojo, you not even reading the summary now?
      He made an Alford plea which does not admit guilt.
      That's the whole point, he had a lawyer who did know what they were doing.
      Unlike you.