Everyone pretty much knows how a criminal trial goes–your attorney and the prosecutor get up in front of a judge or a jury and argue your case. At the end of it all, that same judge or jury decides whether you’re innocent or guilty.
You always maintain the right to a trial. But, if you and your attorney decide your chances of winning that trial aren’t quite high enough to take the risk, and you’re offered a plea deal, you may choose to take that deal.
A Conviction Through a Plea Bargain
With a plea bargain, your attorney and the prosecutor will negotiate the terms of the agreement. You’ll then review the offer and decide whether or not to accept it. If you choose to accept it, you’ll go through what’s called a plea colloquy. A plea colloquy is a court hearing in which the judge will ensure you are pleading voluntarily and understand the consequences of your decision.
The judge will ask you a series of questions, many of which center on the factual basis for the crime you allegedly committed. This whole process takes place while you’re under oath. So, what happens if you want to accept the plea deal, but you disagree about the facts the Commonwealth is saying prove your guilt?
A Rare Conundrum
Let’s take a moment to imagine this scenario: Based on its investigation, the Commonwealth accuses Phil of committing a particular crime. Phil agrees that he committed that crime, but not in the way the prosecutor thinks he did. (This situation commonly occurs in cases where the only evidence is witness testimony). Phil knows that if he goes to trial, even if he chooses to testify in his own defense, it’s likely he’s going to be found guilty.
What should Phil do during his plea colloquy, then, when the judge is asking him whether the facts the prosecutor is bringing forth are true? If he asserts that they are, Phil would be lying under oath. But, Phil wants the benefits of the deal he’s being offered, and he would be ineligible for those benefits if he insists upon his story of the case.
A Hidden Third (and Fourth) Option
There’s something called an Alford plea that can get Phil out of this bind. An Alford plea allows a defendant to make a formal admission of guilt and simultaneously maintain their innocence. While this may sound contradictory, it isn’t really. During the plea colloquy, you don’t accept the facts the prosecutor has alleged as true, but you acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict you, and you accept the guilty charge.
I say third, and fourth, because Alford pleas are similar to nolo contendere pleas. The difference is, with a nolo contendere plea, you don’t assert your guilt or your innocence, but you accept the penalty of the guilty charge. A nolo contendere plea also can’t be used against you in another criminal proceeding, while an Alford plea can.
How Should We Think About These Options?
It’s important to note that both of these scenarios are extremely rare–Alford and nolo contendere pleas aren’t even offered in every jurisdiction. So, chances are, if you commit a crime, you won’t end up like Phil. But, in the rare case that you find yourself in a similar situation, these options might be available to you.
Alford and nolo contendere pleas are a strange and somewhat counterintuitive part of our criminal justice system. The thought of denying your guilt and accepting the consequences of the charge regardless doesn’t sound the same as innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, it is sometimes within your rights to do so, and when it comes to making decisions with legal implications, you should consider all available options before proceeding.
