Why does the law (sometimes) allow for a plea of “nolo contendere”, i.e. no contest? From the Wiki article on it, I gather that a plea of ‘no contest’ may have some potential advantages for the defendant with respect to any future civil actions. Still, despite the appeal which this might hold for the defendant, I don’t see why ‘the law’ would want to offer the possibility of such a plea in the first place. In other words, why the need for a third option in addition to ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’?
Like the similar Alford plea, it means, in essence, “I am not admitting to guilt in this matter, but in the circumstances in which I find myself, I choose to not contend against the accusation(s) against me at trial, and request the court to proceed to sentencing.”
A no contest plea, besides allowing defendants who truly are not guilty to avail themselves of the benefit of the bargain of a plea through the dubious Alford plea, also allows defendants who were seriously (voluntarily) intoxicated at the time of the offense to take responsibility. In most jurisdictions, a guilty plea - either through a plea bargain or pleading straight up to the charges - requires a factual admission from the defendant of the offense. Some judges require more of an in-depth factual basis from the defendant than others. If a defendant was intoxicated at the time and cannot remember their actions, they cannot truthfully admit to the court to doing something they have no recollection of.
In some jurisdictions, “nolo contendere” can also be used in civil suits for the kind of proceedings which need a trial for procedural reasons but when the second party is OK with just proceeding along (I’ve seen it in divorces and paternity cases).
In a nolo contendere case, does the prosecution still have to present a case? Or is the plea itself a concession that the prosecution has evidence that would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Thanks to all (and thanks also for pointing out that not-too-long-ago thread that I missed).
I’m still not sure I understand what’s in it for the system, so to speak. In other words, why does ‘the law’ even permit such a plea? Why not just insist on ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’? What does society, or ‘the law’, gain by allowing nolo contendere pleas? Is there anything more than what Camus noted?
Aside from the traditional aspects of the plea, if it gets a defendant to plead out instead of going through the expense and uncertainty of a trial, it’s probably worth having.
The nolo plea I remember most was by Spiro Agnew. Even though he was only charged with the least of his crimes, he refused to admit guilt.
They may have to present evidence, which is one reson why prosecutors don’t like 'em for serious charges. Generally there has to be evidence to substantiate the plea before the court will accept it, which is usually satisfied by the defendant’s allocution or written stipulation of evidence, or something of that nature. In a no contest plea, the defendant isn’t admitting anything, so there may have to be some sort of evidence presented by the prosecutor to support the case, maybe even calling witnesses to give verbal testimony. Since not making the prosecutor work harder than necessary is sort of the whole point of a plea offer, this can be a problem. Sometimes this can be worked around by having a written stipulation of evidence where the defendant admits that the evidence would establish his guilt if the case were to proceed to trial, but some prosecutors and judges prefer not to allow such in order to avoid nasty surprises should the defendant change his mind and try to appeal, which wouldn’t be an issue with an outright guilty plea.
I’ve never actually had any problem with no contest pleas at all, but some prosecutors are leery of them and the state prosecutor’s association plea handbook warns against them for the above reasons. In practice, a handwritten and initialed change to the written stipulation and a verbal acknowledgement by the defendant generally seem to satisfy everybody, so the warnings against them might be overly cautious, so long as it’s not capital murder or a sex offense.