# No Contest (Nolo Contendere) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 29, 2010, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455 "2010-09-29T10:25:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/1 "2010-09-29T10:25:20Z")
Why does the law (sometimes) allow for a plea of “nolo contendere”, i.e. no contest? From [the Wiki article on it](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere), 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’? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/2 "2010-09-29T11:04:53Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/3 "2010-09-29T11:25:32Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Why does the law (sometimes) allow for a plea of “nolo contendere”, i.e. no contest? From [the Wiki article on it](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere), 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’?! 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. ---
**Author:** ![Turek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/turek/32/18782_2.png) [@Turek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turek)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/4 "2010-09-29T11:56:41Z")
[A not-too-long-ago similar thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=560118&highlight=contendere) ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/5 "2010-09-29T12:09:53Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/6 "2010-09-29T16:21:37Z")
[Staff Report](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2220/whats-the-difference-between-guilty-and-no-contest) on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/7 "2010-09-29T16:46:10Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/8 "2010-09-29T17:14:24Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/9 "2010-09-29T17:25:04Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/10 "2010-09-29T17:58:28Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/11 "2010-09-29T18:37:07Z")
I had a girlfriend who tried to plead Nolo Contendere to a speeding ticket. The traffic court had a good laugh that day. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/12 "2010-09-29T18:41:11Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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? As mentioned: > [@Bricker's Staff Report](#): > > But a no-contest plea has advantages for both the court and the defendant. For the court, it offers a quick resolution to a potentially troublesome case. For example, Vice President Spiro Agnew was permitted to plead nolo contendere to a charge of falsifying federal tax returns in 1973, presumably because the court wanted to dispose of the matter quickly while the country was embroiled in the Watergate scandal. > > For a criminal defendant, pleading no contest enables him to deny the act at a later civil trial. An accused may find this useful when the criminal penalties are light compared to the cost of a trial, but the potential civil penalties are great. For example, an actor accused of punching a pushy photographer may plead no contest to the criminal charge of assault and pay a small fine or do community service, and still fight the photographer tooth-and-nail on a million-dollar civil suit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/13 "2010-09-29T18:42:21Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > > > 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? > > 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’m surprised to hear this – in my jurisdiction (and until now, I thought universally) it was sufficient for the prosecution to make a proffer. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-contest-nolo-contendere/555455/14 "2010-09-29T19:14:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@pravnik](#): > > > > 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’m surprised to hear this – in my jurisdiction (and until now, I thought universally) it was sufficient for the prosecution to make a proffer. 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.