The 32-year-old man is accused of kidnapping a Louisville family and robbing a bank in St. Matthews. He was out on shock probation at the time.
A man charged with kidnapping a Louisville family and robbing a bank in St. Matthews last year has been ruled incompetent to stand trial.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) — A man accused of kidnapping a Louisville family and robbing a bank in St. Matthews last year has been found incompetent to stand trial.
According to a court order, Armond Langford was found “currently incompetent,” though a doctor stated there is a “substantial probability” that he could be restored to competency within the next year.
Langford will undergo inpatient psychiatric treatment and will receive additional evaluations in the near future.
On Aug. 8, a Louisville woman was abducted from her home near Oxmoor Center along with her two children before being forced to withdraw $20,000 from a local bank at knifepoint. The 32-year-old suspect was arrested later that day and faces several charges, including robbery, kidnapping and assault.
Jennifer Strong was preparing breakfast for her children when she heard her back door open twice. Police said Langford entered the home armed with a knife and forced Strong, her 11-year-old son and her 7-year-old son into a car. Strong sat in the driver’s seat with her older son beside her, while Langford sat in the back seat with her younger son.
With a knife pressed to Strong’s throat, Langford ordered her to drive to the PNC Bank on Shelbyville Road near Oxmoor Center.
When they arrived at the bank, Strong said Langford threatened the teller and demanded $20,000. The tellers placed the money on the ground. Langford grabbed the cash and fled but was arrested by police a few hours later.
A history of mental illness
When Langford was arrested in August, his criminal history led many in the public to question why he had been released earlier. Court records show Langford pleaded guilty in early 2024 to robbing several Louisville ATMs in 2021. Prosecutors had argued against granting probation.
“Mr. Langford terrorized our community for several months,” prosecutor Milja Zgonjanin said during Langford’s shock probation hearing on July 10, 2024.
Langford had spent several years in custody while the case progressed, serving time in the jail in downtown Louisville. He was also housed at the Roederer Correctional Complex in Oldham County, where the state later determined his risk level was low enough for him to be transferred to a halfway house.
Before Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Jessica Green granted Langford shock probation, she repeatedly asked those facilities to report on his behavior, according to court records. Both facilities sent letters to Green describing Langford as a model inmate with no disciplinary violations.
Court records also show that Langford has a history of mental illness and suffered a traumatic brain injury.
“I really need to see if you are going to be accepted into mental health court,” Green said during Langford’s shock probation hearing. “I’m hopeful that you will be because I believe that that’s the structure that you need.”
Some current and former judges told WDRB News that Green appeared to go beyond standard practice by checking on Langford’s status to ensure he did not pose a danger at the time. The judges asked to remain anonymous so they could speak freely, saying they feared for their safety due to threats Green has received over the case.
Ultimately, Langford was not accepted into the mental health court program after a state assessment determined he was ineligible because of a low risk of recidivism.
Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Julie Kaelin, who oversees that program, noted in an email included in the court file that Green was doing “everything possible” to keep Langford on the right track.
Retired Judge McKay Chauvin, now the Jefferson County chief court administrator, said judges often face difficult decisions in cases like Langford’s.
“Every judge knows that every sentencing decision they make, regardless of how thoughtfully and responsibly they make it, still has the potential to end badly,” Chauvin said. “Judges also know that if and when that happens, people will be angry and may not recognize or be interested in the difference between a bad decision and a bad result.”
Shock probation is typically intended for first-time offenders and often for those charged with nonviolent offenses. Technically, this was Langford’s first felony offense, although it was considered violent.
Green ultimately granted Langford five years of shock probation with several conditions, including receiving mental health treatment and remaining on his medication.
“I don’t believe that mentally ill people, just by virtue of your mental illness, need to be in custody,” Green said during the hearing. “But what I do believe is that we all owe it to the community to keep people safe, and if we can keep the community safe while giving you the support that you need, I’m all for it. But you got to do your part, OK? I’ll be checking up on you. I’ll be checking in.”
Following public outrage after Langford’s most recent arrest, Green recused herself from the case, saying she and her family received racial and sexual threats.
In her recusal order, Green said her decision to release Langford led to a “torrent of vicious threats of bodily harm, sexual assault, and death to the undersigned and her family.” She added that her personal information had been posted online, including a message urging people to “surround her house until she quits.”
Her office also received numerous letters, emails and phone calls containing what she described as “shockingly vile racial animus.” One message cited in the order read: “N***** Judge. Why did we free you? You’re (sic) African kings sold you to everyone because you were all so stupid and useless. Animals. Need caged.”
Langford’s case was randomly assigned to Green’s division before being transferred to another courtroom.
“The aforementioned vitriol notwithstanding, any and all decisions concerning this case would, as is true for any case that comes before this Court, be made based on the relevant facts and applicable law …” Green wrote. “However … the Court has serious concerns about the extent to which the aforementioned outrage might impact how those decisions will be perceived or, more to the point, misperceived.”
Leave a Comment