Because he wanted his trial, dammit! He had the poster boards already drawn! Not an unusual reaction, under the circumstances. Some people just can’t take yes for an answer.
If it’s a case of “I didn’t do it, but just want to get this trial over with”, isn’t there a plea of No Contest for that purpose?
And 27 8"x10" glossy photographs!
With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was!
Read about Alford Pleas: Alford plea - Wikipedia
That will give you a good background on how this situation arises.
It’ll be a typical case of American blind justice!
Not in our courts. The choices available to an accused are plead guilty, plead not guilty, or adjourn until a later date. If an accused wants to “get it over with,” the judge will not accept a plea. Usually, if the unrepresented accused pleads guilty, the judge will stand down or adjourn the matter until the accused has spoken with a lawyer, as I said upthread.
We have no public defenders in Canada, but as I mentioned, we do have duty lawyers standing by. (I’ve done this many times before; acting as counsel and speaking for people on the spot.) In addition, we have a Legal Aid system that ensures that people who need counsel and/or representation, but who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, can have it. It is not uncommon for accuseds who try to plead guilty, “just to get it over with,” to instead be given an adjournment to seek Legal Aid.
But we have no “no contest” plea.
From the writing, it seems he is upset about how much time and money was wasted.
And does anyone else find the idea that the judge gets to decide whether or not I can plead guilty to be rather disturbing? I mean, I wouldn’t have a problem with one trying to convince me that I don’t want to do it, but the fact that the final decision is not mine is greatly disturbing to me. My right to NOT have a lawyer seems to be being impinged.
Sure, but if the prosecutor is moving to dismiss, that saves time - no trial, charges are dismissed and everyone can leave right away, instead of after an hour or two of trial time.
No, not disturbed by it at all. A criminal prosecution is not a private matter of contract and agreement; it’s an allegation that someone has broken the law and warrants being punished for it, by the state. That makes it a public function, performed by the court as the judicial branch of government. That penal function must only be exercised in cases that truly warrant it. One way to think about it is that even in the case of guilty plea, the prosecution still must prove the person committed the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The court, a key component of the state, is the final decision-maker on that issue.
If the person wishing to plead guilty does not admit to the crime, and in fact in his submissions to the court actually denies part of the necessary factors of the crime, then the court is duty-bound not take the plea, because the charge has not been proven and the court cannot convict the accused.
As for the cases where the court initially refuses to take the plea and adjourns to encourage the accused to seek legal advice, nothing wrong with that either. The court has an obligation to be sure that a person making a guilty plea is fully informed of the consequences of doing so, and it is not the court’s function to do so. Encouraging legal advice is simply ensuring that if a guilty plea is ultimately entered, it will be because the accused truly is accepting that he broke the law and is subject to punishment. As a matter of good public policy, the penal power of the state should only be invoked in cases that truly warrant it.
The fact that I was a newly certified LEO through the International Association of Chiefs of Police with really meant nothing, but I was in the right and was eager to present my case and then as long as they had ordered the officer in to court to hear it I felt more need to win by my innocents than to win by a dismiss.
Think of the batter that has an opportunity to hit a G-S and has the capability and is walked. 
What’s a G-S?
I think it’s a grand slam.
Grand Slam. ETA: Scooped.
Maybe this is more an issue for another thread – but if a judge has good reason to suspect the defendant could be innocent (say a crime with multiple suspects), can a defendant be struck with perjury (or obstruction of justice if it would “conflict” with a more honest conviction) if they plead guilty/accept a plea bargain for a crime it ultimately turns out they didn’t commit? Could a judge in good faith not accept it to “protect” the defendant from such legal ramifications?
I don’t think you’re sworn in and tetifying when you plead (in fact as defendant, you shouldn’t be. Therefore,contempt of court might be as far as that gets. OTOH, there is no special punishment for pleading not guilty when you ARE guilty, so why would there be penalties for the reverse? You must answer, so you cannot be forced to say something that gets you in trouble.
Yes Grand Slam.
As a young recent graduate and having the prospect of winning on the merit of the evidence I was “Deflated” with the dismiss. Maybe the prosecutor could see that coming 
He had to preserve the record. A dismissal after the judge began hearing evidence has jeopardy attached.