Today’s Oakland Trib has a case in New Kent, Va. where a woman pleaded to involuntary manslaughter (for microwaving her baby to death - how that is involuntary is a question in itself)
It says “She entered an Alford plea, under which she did not admit guilt but acknowledged that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict her.”
Is it related to Nolo Contendere? How is it different?
::: whipping out her Black’s Law Dictionary :::
Nolo contendere: Latin phrase meaning “I will not contest it”; a plea in a criminal case which has the same legal effect as pleading guilty. Type of plea which may be entered with leave of court to a criminal complaint or indictment by which the defendant does not admit or deny the charges, though a fine or sentence may be imposed pursuant to it. Page. 1048, citations omitted.
Alford plea: Name derived from North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), in which Supreme Court held that a guilty plea which represented a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives available to the defendant, especially where he was represented by competent counsel, was not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because the plea was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. . . . p. 71.
In other words, an Alford plea is entered when a defendant is not admitting guilt but is admitted that the State could likely find him guilty (usually to a higher charge) upon the evidence, and therefore he believes it is in his best interests to plead guilty (usually to a reduced charge).
The legal difference is that an Alford plea acknowledges that the State would likely be able to find you guilty and that is why you are pleading out; nolo contendere does not necessarily indicate that, it just means you are not contesting the charge. In my jurisdiction, a defendant may enter an Alford plea to any charge but by law may not plead nolo contendere to a charge involving alleged sexual misconduct (like rape or sexual assault). I hope someone else can give you more details on the difference between the two; since I don’t practice criminal law, my understanding of the difference is a little fuzzy as well.
Isn’t there a way to say “I’m innocent, but I still don’t want to contest it and will accept a plea bargain.” ?
I thought some people did that to prevent susequent civil cases (consider OJ’s) based on an admission of guilt in the criminal trial.
So far as I recall, an Alford plea is basically identical to a common law nolo contendre plea.
Alford, in fact, rests on the decision Hudson v. U.S., 272 U.S. 451 (1926). Hudson stands for the proposition that an accused pleading nolo contendre may still be sentenced to prison. Mr. Hudson contended that since he was pleading nolo contendre, the court could not sentence him to both a fine and jail, since that was the maximum allowable sentence for the crime.
The Supremes disagreed, saying, “Undoubtedly a court may, in its discretion, mitigate the punishment on a plea of nolo contendere and feel constrained to do so whenever the plea is accepted with the understanding that only a fine is to be imposed. But such a restriction made mandatory upon the court by positive rule of law would only hamper its discretion and curtail the utility of the plea.”
Since Hudson, then, it’s been clear a nolo contendre plea has the same effect as a guilty plea, or guilty finding by trial, for the purposes of sentencing. The difference is that a nolo contendre plea does not later estop the accused from asserting his innocence in another forum - for example, in a civil claim.
Alford stands for the proposition that an accused has an unfettered right to enter such a plea. There had been a historical reluctance to accept nolo contendre pleas in cases involving moral turpitude. Alford provides that any accused may, without admitting actual guilt, plead to the charges and avoid a trial. An Alford plea is thus a nolo contendre plea, acceptance of which is forced upon the Commonwealth.
In situations where a defendant could plead nolo contendre, why would he ever choose to plead guilty? What are the advantages of pleading guilty?
One advantage appears at sentencing; remorse (or at least the appearance thereof) may affect how stiff a sentence is handed down.
The prosecution may demand a guilty plea to a lesser offense. It may not accept a nolo contondre plea to assault if the original charge is attempted murder. While the Alford case that they have to accept a nolo contendre plea to the charge of attempted murder, there is no rule that forces the prosecution to offer a deal to a lesser charge and also accept a no contest plea. In such a case, the “advantage” to pleading guilty is the avoiding of a guilty finding, after trial, of a more serious charge.