I have a question for those lawyers, law students, or general know-it-alls on this board. I know, in court, what the pleas of guilty and not guilty are. I also know guilty by way of insanity (plan to use that later:)). However, I am left in the dark when TV shows and the newspaper talk about plea bargains, no contest, etc.
Can anyone fill me in on the different types of pleas that can be entered in court? No legal problem- just curious.
No contest, nolo contendre in Latin, means that you do not contest the findings or charges of the court.
Plea bargaining is the process whereby costly and predictable courtroom outcomes are avoided by all parties in exchange for cooperation, a reduced sentence or dropping of other charges in a particular case against the defendant.
All better?
How, in practice, does nolo contendre differ from “guilty”?
Court: We accuse you of felony public basketweaving. How do you plea?
Me: Guilty. (Yes, I did it.)
-or-
Me: Nolo contendre. (I won’t argue with you. Sounds good.)
What difference does it make? Is it something about how a person can’t be made to testify against themselves by pleading guilty, but that they may not wish to lie by pleading not guilty? Is it some way of saying, “Well, those charges aren’t quite accurate, but I don’t see the point of trying to contest them”? Why on earth would I do that? Help me out…
Admittedly, this is based on how it is on New Zealand, but the US and NZ both being common law jurisdictions, this is most likely the same.
What you need to do is seperate the idea of civil proceedings and criminal proceedings. If you crash into someone’s parked car, and they sue you for damage, this will result in civil proceedings. The court will not find you “guilty”. Instead, it will find you “liable” for the damage caused. If you find yourself with no defence, basically you offer no defense,or no contest (nolo contendre). If you were charged with a criminal offense, then you’d just stand up and say, ah “guilty”, and sit down and try and look like a nice person 
Hope that’s the same, else just ignore this reply…
I have always thought that no contest meant that you are neutral. In other words, you aren’t saying you did and you aren’t saying you didn’t. It kind of seems that no contest is just one step below saying “I’m guilty”. I could be wrong though. No wait, I plead “no contest”. :D:D
A plea of nolo contendere can’t be used as evidence against you later, in any civil or criminal proceeding. A plea of guilty can be used against you, unless it’s withdrawn. Federal Rule of Evidence 410.
Incidentally, I hear that because of the above “benefit” of the nolo contendere plea, it usually results in a harsher sentence than a guilty plea. But, this is just what I’ve heard, I could be wrong.
Plea bargaining, so common in common law countries is not used in other jurisdictions. There you get a trial and the conclusion is not subject to bargaining. They always look at the concept of plea bargaining as something very beneath the dignity of jurisprudence.
Two of our eminent resident counsel have recently addressed the issue of nolo and guilty pleas: What is an ‘Alford plea’ ? Is it the same as Nolo?
“No Contest” is just easier for most people to say.
It is treated the same as being found guilty. It still goes on your criminal record. And you are considered as having been convicted of a crime.
And Max Torque covered the other detail, about not meing held against you in future proceedings.
OK, I think that makes sense. Thanks.