You don't have to be convicted of a new crime for the judge to revoke your probation.
It can be revoked even if you're found not guilty of the new charge.
Sounds crazy, right?
It's not. The reason is that the standard for a judge to revoke your probation requires the judge to be "reasonably satisfied" with the evidence you violated a term or condition of probation. In other words, there only has to be " some evidence” you messed up. That evidence doesn't need to be " proof beyond a reasonable”.
And yes, I have seen cases where a person was found “not guilty" but still had their probation revoked.
This may seem strange.
Let me explain:
The prosecution may not be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt” someone committed a crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high burden. While proof at trial may not rise to "beyond reasonable doubt" there still may be "some evidence" the accused committed the crime, just not enough to get to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Since all that's required to revoke probation is “some evidence" if the judge still finds there's some evidence the accused committed the crime even if they were found not the judge's finding can be a one-way ticket to the state penitentiary.