Nolo contendere - why?

Factual Questions
1

Please could someone explain the reasoning behind or benefits of a ‘no contest’ plea.

From the accuser’s point of view, I can see the gain of not having to go to trial. But a guilty plea has the same outcome.

For the accused the end results are also the same.

Plea ‘not guilty’. Big expensive trial. Found guilty. Got to jail.
Plea ‘quilty’. Go to jail.
Plea ‘no contest’. Go to jail, move directly to jail, do not collect $200. etc.

2

Pleading “no contest” (in some places) does not act as an admission of guilt for civil liability purposes, and it may (again, depending) not count as a “guilty” for other purposes (eligibility for programs or stuff), and it also has slight evidentiary distinctions (in future cases). (this is all very YMMV)

3

My best guess is that some people figure that later on down the road they can try to explain away the plea deal “Well, as a kid in my 20’s I had to plea no contest to a trumped up charge of public lewdness at Mardi Gras, because I wasn’t able to afford a lawyer” and think that it might sound better than being found guilty on the same charge…

Basically, it gives a bit of a chance to save face—“I didn’t really do this, but can’t take the time and spend the money to prove my innocence”.

Of course, this is just my take on it—There may be valid legal reasons as well; maybe it is easier to get a no contest plea expunged years later that it would be for a straight-out guilty plea?

4

I don’t think so. Even if you plead no contest, the verdict is still “guilty as charged”. The small distinction is that you made no admission of guilt.

5

Wha? Since when? The disposition on rap sheets is still “nolo contendere”.

6

One of my high school government teachers said that this plea meant “I didn’t do it, and I promise not to do it again.”

7

This brilliantly-written and insightful Staff Report answers these questions.

8

Suppose I really and truly believe that I did not do the act which they are accusing me of doing, but for some reason I want to avoid the time or expense or publicity of a trial. Under such circumstances, why on earth would I plead guilty to something that I did not do, if the “no contest” option is available to me?

In other words, I don’t understand the OP. Even if the legal effect of the two pleas is identical, I am not going to confess to something I didn’t do (unless there was some advantage to doing so, which was not suggested in the OP).

9

I had not considered that an innocent person would use the plea. If you were not guilty you would plea ‘not guilty’. If the judge was not willing to take your word for it then you would go to trial and be found innocent by your peers.

10

I did it for a relatively minor traffic offense that could have been significantly more major to be found guilty of.

I DID do it, but I did not do it on purpose (hell, I didnt even realize that I HAD even done it), and ONCE I had found out I had done it, I was quite embarrased about the whole thing. In hindsight, I realized that there was probably no physical evidence that I had done it, but it was (sorta) two peoples words against mine, and I honestly couldnt tell you for sure that I had NOT done.

So, basically, it was, in my mind “well, your evidence is better than mine, I’d never do something like that on purpose anyway, and I’ll certainly be more carefull to not do it again”.

Under these conditions and that mindset and the fact that the Judge had no trouble believing my story, that sort of plea seemed to make perfect sense.
Or, to recap, in my case it meant "I coulda done it (can’t tell you either way honestly), but I certaintly didn’t do it on purpose and realize its a bad thing to do.

11

or, you know, not.

12

So when someone says, “I didn’t do it, but to spare myself (or my family) the expense (or the trouble or embarrassment) of a trial, I am pleading guilty (or making this deal or paying this settlement)” – you simply reject it and believe that they really are guilty? Ditto for when a person was framed or for some other reason is unable to mount a decent defense?

13

Well, that’s all well and good for big stuff, but for traffic violations and the like, the fine is often not worth fighting. When I was a kid, I got a fine for riding my bike on the sidewalk, and had the option of pleading no contest. It was a $50 fine, which was a big deal to a kid, but not as big a deal as trying to fight it. Mind you, I was guilty, and so I pled, but it was an option.

14

I will accept your guilty plea on “insightful”, but the “brilliantly-written” stretches credulity. Care to change your plea to nolo contendre? :smiley:

15

OK. I understand for small matters. Parking ticket $60 - but you can get a special discount if you pay up straight away.

But for big things… Let’s take murder as an example.

Example one - I didn’t do it.

  1. I plea ‘Not guilty’. There is doubt so it goes to trial. Prosecutor won’t be able to prove that I am (because, as stated in this example, I’m not). I go free.

  2. I plead ‘No contest’. I go to jail and serve time with all the downsides and stigma that that includes.
    Them: ‘What were you in for?’
    Me: ‘Murder. But I didn’t do it…’
    Them: ‘Yeah, Right’.

  3. I plead ‘Guilty’. I go to jail etc. I spend a little bit of extra time there because I’ve perjured myself by saying that I did it, when I didn’t. I still get to say ‘I was in for Murder but i didn’t do it’.

Example Two. I did do it.

  1. Plead ‘Guilty’. Go to jail.
  2. Plead ‘No contest’. Go to jail.
  3. Plead ‘Not guilty’. Prosecutor in 1 above is now gleeful, because he can now prove something. Go to jail + a bit extra for lying about being ‘Not guilty’.

I think my ignorance comes from innocent people wanting to serve time for a crime they didn’t commit. If you were doing it to protect someone’s feelings, I would have thought clearing your name would be a better way than removing just a bit of the tarnish.

16

I’ve just re-read this. The line:

"A traditional nolo contendere plea is a refusal to admit guilt; an Alford plea actively asserts innocence. "

I think, clears up a lot of my confusion.

Thanks.

17

The Staff Report linked to above makes the most important point. Pleading “nolo contendere” allows you to claim you are not guilty at some later stage of proceedings, for example on appeal or during a civil trial. If you plead guilty at the beginning, that option is closed.

18

Only if you lied on the stand. If you tell the truth, but not all of it, or if you do not testify, you’re in the clear.

I’ve heard it said that 25% of your defense attorney’s fee is for the trial. 75% is for deciding whether or not to put you on the stand.

19

Based on more than a decade as, alternatively, a prosecutor and a defense attorney.
Generally, a nolo plea is appropriate in two circumstances:

  1. If I lay a factual basis (which is usually required in most courts - meaning I tell the court exactly what I did), what I say can be used against me in a civil or administrative proceeding.
  2. I was too druck, stoned, etc, to actually remember and say what I did precisely.

In reality, it is used in a couple of other circumstances:

  1. If I plead nolo, I don’t have to embarrass myself by sayng what I did.
  2. My stupid friends, parents, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. doesn’t understand and I can continue to say I was railroaded.
  3. Its a bone a prosecutor can through to a defense attorney to sweaten an offer.
  4. It keeps a busy court from having to enquire about the factual basis from a Defendant that doesn’t know when to shut up.
  5. Its an Alford plea for people who don’t have good enough legal knowledge or advice to know what an Alford plea is.
20

In many respects that’s how Jesus treated the court when take before Pilate. In His case He seemed to know that, even though He was not guilty, there was nothing He could say, and He had to go through the process. Possible some who plead no contest also feel their fate is predetermined so why go through the effort.