Thursday, March 28, 2024

The Socialist’s Journal: Justice in Georgia?

Trevor Brookins
Trevor Brookins

*Barring some sort of intervention by the governor of Georgia, Ramad Chatman will be in prison for the better part of a decade. And even in hindsight I cannot see how he could have avoided this fate.

Chatman was an admitted ex-convict having broken into a home and stolen a television. But since that incident Chatman was, by all accounts, an upstanding citizen following the terms of his probation to a tee. In fact he was due to complete his probation in July. Unfortunately for Chatman he was identified as a suspect in the robbery of a convenience store.

Once he found out that the clerk had indicated his involvement in the robbery Chatman had two options. One: he could make himself scarce and continue avoiding law enforcement agents. Two: maintaining his innocence, he could turn himself in to police which he did approximately a year after the convenience store robbery. The guilty person is the one who hides from police. On the other hand the usual advice for someone who believes themselves to be innocence would be to cooperate with police. So what should Chatman have done differently?

After turning himself in Chatman was headed to trial as the clerk continued to assert that he was the culprit. At this point Chatman had two choices. One: he could enter an Alford plea which is essentially a middle ground allowing accused criminals to plead guilty while maintaining their innocence. Two: he could take his chances going to trial. Because he believed his prior conviction might prejudice jurors against him Chatman tried to enter an Alford plea. But the presiding judge, believing Chatman robbed the convenience store, would not accept it and essentially forced Chatman to go to trial. So again what should Chatman have done differently? The actions taken by the judge seem to support Chatman’s suspicions about his criminal history being a problem. It is for situations precisely like this that Alford pleas exist. And yet when the perfect situation to use it arises, the judge denies the plea.

When a person goes to trial for a crime there are usually two outcomes. One: the person can be found guilty and be made to suffer the consequences. Two: the person can be found not guilty and usually be released back into society to continue their life. Because of the unreliability of the clerk’s testimony as well as a lack of physical evidence tying him to the robbery Chatman was found not guilty. It should be noted that not only was the only testimony placing Chatman at the scene of the crime deemed uncredible by the jury, there was no other evidence that would suggest Chatman was guilty in their eyes.

But the judge in this case for some reason disagreed with the jury and took it upon himself to declare that Chatman was legally liable for the robbery. While that had no bearing on the case that had just concluded, because the judge held him responsible in the commission of a crime while on probation, Chatman’s commuted sentence was erased and he now faces 10 years in prison. Again what should Chatman have done differently? All of this after he was found not guilty. All of this after he tried to follow the most straight and narrow path possible every step of the way.

I keep asking the question but I’m not sure there’s anything Chatman could have or should have done differently – he followed a reasonable course of action in turning himself in, trying to enter an Alford plea, and then presumably working with his lawyer to prove his innocence. Furthermore I don’t think the legal system of Georgia needs to operate differently – ex-convicts on probation should have their probation revoked if they commit a felony. Nor I don’t think the clerk should have done anything differently – she should be able to give her version of events to law enforcement. I can however point the finger at the judge who presided over the case. Why didn’t he allow the plea? Why did he view the evidence so differently from the jury? Perhaps he needs to explain his logic behind those decisions. Because at this point it appears the best case is that he had a vendetta against Chatman for some reason and the worst case is that he has a vendetta against black people in general.

The great thing is that the governor (or President but don’t hold your breath) can make this go away by pardoning Chatman. And if there is any justice, that’s what will happen.

Trevor Brookins is a free lance writer in Rockland County, New York. He is currently working on a book about American culture during the Cold War.  His writing has appeared in The Journal News. You can reach him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @historictrev.

 

We Publish News 24/7. Don’t Miss A Story. Click HERE to SUBSCRIBE to Our Newsletter Now!

YOU MAY LIKE

SEARCH

- Advertisement -

TRENDING