My clients never took an oath before pleading guilty. Not sure if that varies by jurisdiction. Thus, in Washington state, at least, not perjury.
I believe this came up in an earlier thread, and the answer is that the guilty/not guilty plea is not taken under oath and cannot be considered perjury. Otherwise, anyone who pleads not guilty and is then convicted could be charged.
No. Making a plea is not testimony, it is not sensible at a semantic level for a plea to be prejury. A plea is simply telling the legal system which option you’re taking, “Not guilty” doesn’t really mean “I didn’t do it”, it says “I require the state to prove it’s case”. Similarly, a plea of “guilty” really says “I do not require the state to prove it’s case.” It’s very clearly established in the American legal system that part of due process is that the state has to prove its case against the individual, prosecuting someone for saying whether they are requiring the state to prove the case or waiving their right to a trial wouldn’t make sense and would almost certainly be thrown out as a violation of due process or self incrimination protections if someone tried it.
If he did make a statement under oath confessing to the crime (which is common in guilty pleas but not the same thing as the plea itself), I think it’s theoretically possible for that to be perjury, but in practice they wouldn’t stick and the judge would very likely throw the case out and possibly sanction the prosecutor. If nothing else, plea bargains are vital to the functioning of the courts, if someone could get prejury charges for what they’re required to say when they plea out it would make a LOT of cases go to trial that shouldn’t go to trial. Also, if you allow perjury conviction in that case, you also open the prosecutor to charges of suborning perjury, since he pushed the defendant to make the statement even though the defendant said that the statement was false. All in all it’s a mess that just doesn’t happen.
This has happened before. A man was accused of rape. He took a plea bargain, admitting guilt as part of the process, which reduced his sentence enormously.
Later, the person he was accused of raping recanted, and her diaries were discovered. They contained dated entries where she discusses her guilt about falsely making the rape accusations.
This combination of notes plus the sworn testimony of the victim in open court was enough for the appeals court to overturn the conviction completely. Normally they wouldn’t, but the judges point out that the man would have faced decades in prison were he to go to trial and lose, and thus the plea bargain was an entirely reasonably thing for an innocent man to take.
In West Virginia, criminal defendants are always placed under oath at plea hearings.
I didn’t have to take an oath in vic.aus.
I did absolutely have to not do anything in court suggesting that I might think I was not guilty, or the plea would not be accepted. (Same was true for the prosecution, but they are experienced professionals, so that wasn’t going to happen).
If the plea had been thrown out, the judge and the prosecuter would both have been pissed off. Not a situation my defence wanted me to get into.
Yes, but the plea is entered before the defendant is under oath. It’s one of the first things done. Even defendants who choose not to take the stand and testify under oath have already entered a plea.
In general, it wouldn’t be allowable, because I don’t think the DA could prove the defendant was willing to plead. As Norther Piper already said, nothing that anyone says in the settlement discussions can be used as evidence.
In my experience, the plea colloquy (which was under oath) culminated in the actual plea. (You also enter a plea when you’re arraigned, but everyone’s not guilty then).
No on both questions - see Bricker’s post on Rule 410 of the FRE. Virtually all if not all states have adopted a substantially identical rule. For example, Florida:
Note that the rule does not exclude offers to plead made in federal or other-state proceedings.
Innocent people pleading guilty might be more common that you expect.
From the innocence project:
If you recall the recent story of the 15-year-old arrested and locked up in Rykers for 3 years, based on completely bogus information, as his case bounced around between prosecutors, the accuser’s story changed and he disappeared… The teen related that so many of his fellow inmates said “why don’t you just plead guilty and you’ll get out?” hey didn’t understand the concept that he was pleading not guilty simply because he wasn’t guilty. Once the law sinks its fangs into you, just go along with whatever gives you the least time.
the big problem is the disparity between what the prosecution offers and what they threaten to ask for. I believe someone mentioned the UK system, the prosecutor can only offer a plea deal for 2/3 of what they will ask for at trial - enough to persuade a guilty party to skip the trial, but not so much that an innocent person is strongly tempted to settle.
As I understand it, “nolo contendere” is “no contest”. Basically, accept the prosecution’s case and a guilty verdict without admitting guilt. I read once about the pinnacle of NYC journalism during the 20’s, when some mob boss pled “nolo contendere” and one of the fine New York tabloids headline was “Mob Boss Pleads Guilty in Italian”.
If you plead guilty, you must admit to having committed the crime. As I understand the process (IANAL) if the judge gets a hint that you are claiming to be innocent and simply accepting a deal, he can and will reject the deal. Since a decent number of plea deals are probably settling, the judge of course must be willfully blind.
Plea bargaining as we understand it in the US isn’t permitted at all. The prosecution can only offer to drop some charges in exchange for a guilty plea on others. The prosecution in England and Wales can’t offer to seek a reduced term on a specific charge. Not sure about Scottish law.
In California, at least, there’s one difference - in misdemeanor cases, a “no contest” plea is the same as guilty for the criminal courts, but can’t be used against you in a civil lawsuit later. Though for felonies, it’s the same as guilty in that regard.