What is this? Is it between Guilty and not Guilty?
As far as I know (I’m not a lawyer) No Contest is like pleading guilty, except that you don’t wish to say that you’re guilty. It’s used when it’s cheaper to just pay the fine rather than to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer.
Just to confirm MrNeutron’s AFAIK (can AFAIK be an noun?), see:
(Sorry, can’t link to the actual definition of no contest, but go to “n” in the index.)
An accused may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even though he is unwilling to admit participation in the crime, or even if he protests his innocence, when he intelligently concludes that his bests interests require avoiding a trial or accepting a plea offer and the record strongly evidences his guilt.
A guilty plea may be used in a subsequent civil trial as evidence of guilt; a non-contest plea may not.
- Rick
So is there some oversight? In other words, can a prosecutor and/or judge say no? I’m imagining a scenario in which the potential civil penalties are far greater than the criminal ones – a multi-million dollar fraud scheme, say.
Can one just plead nolo without anyone’s approval, thus removing the considerable power of the state as regards searches of records, &ct? Or can the state (or the judge) say, “no the interests of the people demand that you either plead guilty or go to trial?”
My Civics teacher said that it’s a way of saying “I didn’t do it, and I promise not to do it again!” That seems to sum it up nicely.
I heard that one big motivation for the ‘No Contest’ is when you fear a civil suit after the criminal case. If I burn down your gazebo and plead guilty to arson, if you sue me for the cost of the gazebo I don’t have a chance in hell of winning the suit, since I admitted to doing it. If I plead ‘No Contest’ it’s effectively the same as pleading guilty, but without the built-in admission of guilt, you will have to prove over again in the civil suit that I did burn down your gazebo.
I just want to add that I have heard (no personal exp.) that a no contest plea will usually get you a stiffer sentance then a guilty plea.
This very question was asked by one Alford, a ne’er-do-well charged with murder in North Carolina in 1963. At that time North Carolina law provided for the penalty of life imprisonment when a plea of guilty was accepted to a first-degree murder charge, but allowed for the death penalty following a jury verdict of guilty. Alford entered a plea of guilty (to a reduced charge) but later claimed his plea was the product of coercion - he wanted to avoid the risk of the death penalty, and wasn’t really guilty.
The Supremes pointed out that in addition to Alford’s own plea, there was strong evidence of guilt. Although they conceded that state and lower federal courts were up to then divided on the issue of whether a guilty plea can be accepted when it is accompanied by protestations of innocence and hence contains only a waiver of trial but no admission of guilt, they decided that:
We thus learn that people have a Constituional right to enter a plea in which they waive trial and accept the consequences of pleading guilty, without actually admitting their guilt. A judge may not reject that plea and force a trial.
A judge may, of course, reject a plea to a lesser charge if the accused fails to admit guilt. But an accused may always plead to the top count(s) of the indictment, saying, in essence, “Yeah, ya got me, and I’ll do the time, but I didn’t really do the crime.” As long as substantial evidence apart from an accused’s confession exists, that is…
- Rick
In Texas, at least, it is possible for a prosecutor to prevent an accused from pleading “no contest” rather than “guilty”. The acccused can’t enter a plea on his felony case without the consent of a prosecutor. So, the prosecutor can present the ultimatum of a guilty plea or a trial.