The jury said not guilty after trial, but the judge says he thinks they are wrong, and still gives him that much time ? Not Guilty verdict had to be based on something more than them not liking witnesses. This sounds like judge losing his sense of fairness. Even victim's son said to be lenient. I don't know much about this defendant, and don't care. I would hate to see this one day become a common practice. It reeks of abuse of power, and collusion between judge and prosecution.
He wasn't found innocent of murder, which is why the judge took it into consideration. I think that's still bullshit, but there is a distinction. If he was found on innocent, then the judge doesn't factor it in.
