Talk:Alford plea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page used to say it was the same as nolo contendere. How is it different fron _nolo contendere_? 64.168.29.29 06:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Has been addressed in the article - a conviction obtained on an Alford plea can be used in subsequent or collateral proceedings, whereas a nolo adjudication cannot. Ellsworth 16:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ever see it addressed in the history. Just wrote a paragraph about it; everyone please add. The comparison is interesting. Tempshill2 17:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is untrue. No criminal conviction may be used in the guilt or innocence phase and all criminal convictions and character evidence may be used in the sentencing phase. SesameRoad 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Collateral consequences 2 Where allowed 3 Q:Why plea Alford instead of guilty? 4 Alford Plea Leading Ultimately To Dismissal - Why? 5 Possible plagiarism of this article by The Politico 6 Factual Dispute

[edit] Collateral consequences

Cut this sentence:

It is not an admission of guilt, and provides one major advantage to defendants: It may not be used later as the basis for civil proceedings seeking monetary or other damages against the defendant, as can a guilty plea.

This is not uniform in all jurisdictions: some do treat an Alford plea as an admission and do allow its use in civil cases. Ellsworth

[edit] Where allowed

Are there any states where an Alford plea is not accepted? Indiana is one IIRC...Ellsworth 20:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q:Why plea Alford instead of guilty?

So what are the advantages of an Alford plea instead of a guilty plea? I guess one of the comments above indicates that it's not always better in terms of civil proceedings, but where it is, that's the advantage, right? Are there no other advantages? -- Creidieki 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The advantage is that it allows the defendant to maintain his innocence. Some defendants are willing to accept the conviction or do probation or some jail time to avoid the risk of much more jail time after a trial, but they don't want to admit to something they didn't do. There's often little legal difference between this and a regular guilty plea, but it makes the defendant feel better. PaulGS 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a choice: go to trial on a second degree felony for which you'll probably be convicted, at a cost of $us50,000 and five to ten years, the appeal will cost upwards of $us250,000 and probably fail -- or take an Alford plea to a fifth degree misdemeanor, do a year of probation, have the case dismissed, cost $us5,000. 24.118.190.206 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Or the other choice, to plead guilty to the offer of the misdemeanor. The question wasn't "what's the advantage of a plea bargain", but "why an Alford plea instead of plain guilty"? And I have no idea where you got your figures from. Most lawyers don't charge anywhere near that much, and if you can't afford one, you get one for free. But the answer, as I mentioned above, is that there's little legal difference, but it makes the defendant feel better that he doesn't have to admit to it. PaulGS 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no offer to plead guilty to the misdemeanor; the free public defender wanted the person above to plead guilty to the felony. The private lawyer who negotiated the deal was paid ~1,000; the rest was various court fees, bail, ... the goal was to preserve his firearms rights.

htom 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard a judge explain it today with possible reasons for an Alford plea agreement of the defendant to avoid additional or more severe charges while still maintaining their innocence. Zaccari (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alford Plea Leading Ultimately To Dismissal - Why?

The article contains the following passage: in many states ... a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed. In light of the article's statement that an Alford Plea is a form of guilty plea, the reason for, in certain jurisdictions, a case being continued and later dismissed as a result of an Alford plea requires some explanation. Hi There 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It used to be that a factor in a criminal conviction was the "mens rea", "the guilty mind", which is a different thing than the "facts" of the acts of the accused. The person making an Alford plea states that there are facts that could lead to a conviction, but (in essence) denies having criminal intent in doing those acts. The supposition is that if the person has a propensity for such acts, they will be repeated, and if they do not, they won't be. So the plea is entered, and then, if the behavior does not recur, the charge is dismissed. Warning, I'm not a lawyer. htom 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue as I see it with this statement is that it explicitly says that the Alford Plea is a guilty plea but then goes on to say that in some states this leads to case continuation and later dismissal. Where's the citation? I want to see where they come up with what appears to be a supposition and not a researched fact. Canby 0830, 6 November 2007

I agree this needs a citation. There are agreements where the prosecutor will agree to dismiss a case after some amount of time if the defendant doesn't commit more crimes, but that doesn't really have anything to do with an Alford plea, because a straight guilty plea can do the same thing. Maybe there's a particular state where an Alford plea does work this way, but if so, it needs a citation. PaulGS (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible plagiarism of this article by The Politico

A recent article in The Politico about US Senator Larry Craig's legal troubles explains the Alford plea as follows:

Finally, Craig could have proffered an Alford plea, in which he wouldn’t admit to doing anything wrong, but would agree that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find him guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose a sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime; however, in many states, including Minnesota, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed.

This is remarkably similar to the introductory paragraph of this article!! Common sections in bold:

In this plea, the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime; however, in many states, such as Massachusetts, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed. It is the prospect of an ultimate dismissal of charges which engenders most pleas of this type.

So, this seems clearly to be plagiarism. Either Wikipedia and the Politico have both copied from the same source, or Politico copied from Wikipedia. Thoughts? MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Politico copied from WP. The Craig bathroom incident had not happened (and would not for 2 years after) when this section was added. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything to be done about it? I left a comment on the Politico article warning about this likely plagiarism, but no one ever responded. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All I could find in the Wikipedia FAQ was this: Wikipedia:Miscellaneous FAQ#Help! I found a website that's copying from Wikipedia!. But I think that's talking about pages that reprint entire articles from Wikipedia, not merely a paragraph or two. --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent them a quick note based off of the template that WP gives for addressing these issues. I told them to email me with their response. I will post here when/if I get a response. If I do not get any sort of response (or nothing is noted here) in a week or two I will send a DMCA notice to their ISP. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 08:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They replied and are checking on this issue. According to the email I received they got the wording from a Minneapolis professor. More details to come. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I'll be interested to hear the outcome. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Dispute

Is there any reason why this article was tagged as having a factual dispute? There isn't a single note about it on this page. Maybe it's time to remove that template? Aep (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Factual dispute tag. 70.119.42.176 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) JMF