Can anyone explain to a legal layman, in the US legal system, what the distinction between a plea of No Contest and a plea of Guilty is?
If you’re interested, Question spurred by this story Jetski - Accidental Death
Staff report by SDMB member Bricker.
Thanks. Missed that in my search somehow. :smack:
While I basically get the difference between “guilty” and “no contest”, I still don’t understand why an accused would ever plead guilty instead of no contest.
The only reason I could think of is hoping for a milder sentence by fully admitting guilt and thus taking responsibility instead of “weaseling out”.
While tbat strategy may appeal to some, I suspect that one primary reason for guilty pleas (as opposed to no contest etc. pleas) is as part of a plea bargain, where the prosecutor offers to drop some charges or to decline to prosecute the most serious charge in exchange for a guilty plea to a designated one of the chargeable offenses. In making such an offer, the prosecution is going to be disinclined to give the defendant any wiggle room for a later reversal via a Nolo or Alford plea.
I remember reading abook about organized crime in New York in the early 20th century. One mob boss was charged and plead “nolo contendere”. In the fine tradition of New York tabloids, the headline the next morning in one paper was “Mob Boss Pleads Guilty in Italian!”