Talk:Alford plea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Former page

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)

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

Where allowed

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

I'd like to know if this is a US phenomena or if there is an equivilent of an Alford plea (or contend plea) in other nations. Tyciol (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I fact-tagged it. The way it's written, it sounds like an Alford plea will get your case dismissed. Editors of the future: Feel free to remove the sentence if the fact tag remains in a few months. Tempshill (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I will tonight. As a non-lawyer myself, I'm guessing that this type of plea can be used at the court's discretion, especially as part of a plea deal, to revisit the case later and dismiss charges. I think it's a way of being able to put someone on a type of "probation", and if they keep clean, the original charge will go away. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Well, the 'Minneapolis professor' explanation would explain why, of the entire quote, pretty much the only thing that changed was "Massachusetts" to "Minnesota". The rest is suspect. Shame on them! ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Origin

Who is/was Alford? How did this plea come to be named after hir? 71.82.157.201 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Guilty or not guilty

As a layman, I am confused by this article. Consider mainly the following claims:

an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which 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.

(I am innocent, but refrain from fighting a fight that I will likely lose regardless.)

The Alford plea differs slightly from the nolo contendere ("no contest") plea.
An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, [...]
On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt,

(I am guilty after all, else I would have pleaded nolo contendere.)

88.77.149.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Tags

I tagged as contradictory due to conflict with North Carolina v. Alford as, unlike the latter, this article says that in order to enter such a plea there must be an admission that "sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty." Is this a POV fork? It has stood for several years without citation. Redheylin (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I further note the change of article's name by User:Cirt and the addition of refs. However, Google gives 32000 hits for the former title and only 11000 for the new one. I note that the user has made these changes in the course of a dispute at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) I further note that the cited source[1] fails to back the assertion it references. This is rather serious..... Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[2] Second reference also fails Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. And I have given multiple sources. And will continue to add more. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd claimed source is a book on social psychology which contains a single unverifiable reference to "Alford". I have noted the editor's remark above that these verifiable assertions of mine are "incorrect" and so, bearing in mind the editor's status and the nature and intent of the apparent violations, shall report the incident.Redheylin (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not "unverifiable". Cirt (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin; the first cited source that you mention Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases does use the term "Alford guilty plea", 7 times on 5 pages [3]. You are correct when you point out that "Alford plea" seems to be the preferred term though. Google: "Alford plea"|"Alford guilty plea" = Google search 31,900|11,200, Google news (recent) 102|2, Google news (archive) 9,790|169, Google books 644|61, Google scholar 347|23. All forms of Google search favour "Alford plea" rather than "Alford guilty plea" and by a very large majority. While you are also correct that the second cited source that you mentioned Dictionary of American criminal justice doesn't use "Alford guilty plea" (it uses "Alford plea" instead), it's likely that reference wasn't actually provided for the definition of the name of the article, but for a definition of what an Alford plea is (what it means). Cirt, is it worth considering changing the name back to "Alford plea" in light of the Google News, Books and Scholar results? Brumski (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brumski, for pointing out the obvious to Redheylin (talk · contribs). I would say that as per Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases, the more specific term is the one used currently on the page. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You've provided 7 references for the opening paragraph, in order to help define the term. All but one of those references use only "Alford plea" and never use "Alford guilty plea" (I can't check the 7th as it's not searchable online, although it seems likely it uses the same "Alford plea" term the others do. If you still have access to that 7th reference: Gender, Crime, and Punishment you could check what term it uses). Doesn't the exclusive use of "Alford plea" by all but one of your own defining references indicate that it would be the more appropriate term? Brumski (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

@Brumski how about a move back to the shorter term, with an acknowledgment in the lede that both terms are in usage? E.g. "also known as...". Sound reasonable? Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Brumski (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski - the question I raised at the Law Portal concerned the necessity that an "Alford" plea requires admission of substantial evidence, an assertion which is not supported at North Carolina v. Alford. This was triggered by conversation at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). My attempt to get legitimate expert help to clarifying and improving these articles (I'd not presume to edit myself) were forestalled by Cirt's edits. My objection here and at ANI concerns the addition of references by Cirt that claim to support this requirement but do not. These are bogus links clearly added, I believe, purely to carry a point on a tangentially-related page. To make it clear, my objections to the links are not in regard to the renaming of the page, though this too was apparently undertaken with the same goal. The need for harmonisation of these two pages with reliable sources has been suppressed in an unacceptable manner. Redheylin (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted removal of tags at North Carolina v. Alford since the claimed "improvements" are absent and the matter is unresolved. Redheylin (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin - you have now made unsupported claims both on this page and at ANI that I have used "bogus" sources. I request that you cease making these false claims and retract them. Cirt (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Redheylin, I think I misinterpreted you as claiming the sources didn't back the article name change whereas really it looks like you're claiming the sources don't back the phrase "but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It seems to me that you have a point worth considering. The thrust of North Carolina v. Alford doesn't seem to be that the Alford is specifically admitting there is sufficient evidence to convict. Also, the Trial on Trial reference in the Definition section of this article, which appears next to the text "by admitting there is enough evidence to convict them of a higher crime" is actually referencing the previous sentence "Defendants can take advantage of the ability to use the Alford guilty plea" rather than the sentence claiming the defendant admits there is enough evidence to convict. I suppose the questions are i) do the sources provided emphasize that the defendant is admitting there is enough evidence to convict, or do they emphasis something slightly different, ii) is the emphasis original research to a certain degree, due to spill over from a wider dispute where the defendant's admittance is being argued over and iii) do the articles diverge on this emphasis. I don't know but I can have a read through and check and offer an opinion. That won't be an opinion as a legal expert though, just as someone that can read sources and see if they agree with the article. Brumski (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, yes, the sources do say that the Alford plea means defendants state there is enough evidence to convict. This is made quite clear later in the article. Every single sentence in the article is cited to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Split up the sentence in the lede, to make this even more clear. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not agreeing there is any attempt to falsify any sources or any deliberate attempt to get the article to say something that the sources do not. If the sources don't explicitly say the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists and the article does (and I'm not claiming the sources don't, just that there is a nuanced point to consider) then it seems fairly obvious to me that's because of interpretation and not because of a falsification of sources. Also, whether the defendant states there is enough evidence to convict him or whether his lawyer believes there is probably enough evidence to convict (which is what North_Carolina_v._Alford#Trial_and_appeals says) or whether by accepting the guilty plea the defendant is tacitly accepting there is substantial evidence for conviction, is a fairly small difference. I think I'll look at this later rather than sooner as I'm only really interested in what the article says with respect to it's sources and don't want to get sucked into or influence a tangential dispute that's being looked at by other people. Brumski (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, I'd rather we not compare existing Wikipedia articles for absolute references, but rather stick to a discussion of what is said in secondary sources. I already worked very hard to improve this article. Its prior state had no sources. I added material cited to twenty-six sources. The article about the case before the Supreme Court of the United States is similarly in a poor-quality shape. I added a few cites, to make sure all existing info in that article is cited, and indeed I improved it such that now every single sentence in that article is cited to WP:RS sources - but I have yet to fully expand and improve upon that article as well. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, thanks for your input. Very fine-cut, looks like you missed your vocation. The question arose when it was proposed at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) that the plea entered showed that evidence existed which, due to a plea-bargain, was never produced. Statements made by the subject show that he most certainly did not admit the existence of such evidence. In this context the difference between such an explicit admission on the plaintiff's part and a tacit admission on the lawyer's are indeed germane. I understand that the above necessity accounts for the difference between this and a nolo contendere plea, but cannot figure out if it is mandatory and whether it differs between US states.

Seeking enlightenment on this I consulted this article and North Carolina v. Alford but found them unsourced and not in agreement. I therefore tagged the pages as a possible POV fork and requested help at the Law Project (not yet forthcoming). I'd like to see the pages brought into line with one another. The references brought by user Cirt did not support the allegation (Cirt is a keen editor of pages hostile to the subject) and required ANI. I'll leave it to you, if I may, to ensure an accurate, neutral and verifiable outcome for both pages since I am not even a US citizen. I'd be happy to stay in touch, though, would gladly help get the thing completely straight, and once again thank you for your own help. Redheylin (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, please note this version of the page before I began work on it (wholly unsourced), and version afterwards (27 sources; every single sentence in the article cited to WP:RS sources). I started a similar process at North Carolina v. Alford. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So, looking at what the sources actually say below, the sources provided do directly support the text "the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and so there is no hint of original research and not even of any interpretation of the sources (instead the text is just a direct reflection of what they explicitly say - the defendant "allows", "concedes", "admits" and "admits"), there is no falsification or bogus sources and there is no problem, except that someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements. I'm sorry Redheylin, the fact that this article defines the Alford plea in a way that is inconvenient for your dispute elsewhere isn't relevant to this article; what is is relevant is whether it reflects the reliable sources, which it does. Brumski (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for confirming that. I take it you consider your caveat as to "implicit belief of lawyer" null and void now, and that you are satisfied that the two articles agree? I'll abide by that.

However, you write: "someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements" - I think once again you may have missed the point, since the refs you mention were added AFTER recourse to ANI, whereas the action itself referred to references added previously which WERE unsatisfactory. I believe that the further work would not have been undertaken without challenging these previous references. Your comments have been posted by Cirt to the ANI page, so I'd be grateful if you'd look into that and consider whether your remarks are justified. Redheylin (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment, above, saying I was in the process of adding more sources, was made before your waste-of-time post about me to ANI. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, it is not true that the references to back up the text in the article were only added after your recourse to ANI. You posted your ANI complaint at 02:30, 29 November 2009. The text in the article as it stood at that time said "the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists..." and had seven references next to it. Four of those references are the exact same ones presented in the What the sources actually say section below: they are items 1, 2, 3 and 4. The wording they use is "allowing", "concedes", "has sufficient evidence" and "admits". The fifth source at the time (Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases) gives an example and uses the phrase "acknowledged there was sufficient evidence". The sixth source at the time (Dictionary of American criminal justice: key terms and major Supreme Court cases) uses the phrase "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution". So the wording of the article text at the time that you made your ANI complaint was a very direct and literal reflection of the wording that the sources use. The article used the word "admits" and the sources present at the time use the following words: admits, admitting", acknowledges, concedes, allowing, has sufficient evidence. Brumski (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brumski, that is a most clear explanation of why Redheylin (talk · contribs) is wrong. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this pretty much seals it: Alford Doctrine: A plea in a criminal case in which the defendant does not admit guilt, but agrees that the state has enough evidence against him or her to get a conviction. Allows the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with the state. If the judge accepts the Alford Plea, a guilty finding is made on the record. - State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time I notified Cirt of ANI report, the first two references provided by Cirt, both of which failed to support the text, were still the only two authoritative sources in place and both failed to give support to the assertion referred to them. After being informed of the report, Cirt added more references, who up to that point had asserted that these were sufficient - but the two sources in question were still cited as saying what they did not say, and have never at any time been cited on this page as examples of authoritative sources that DO NOT back Cirt's POV. You yourself questioned that the assertion was beyond doubt (as well as the validity of the related name-change), so did User:ChildofMidnight. Now you seem to suggest that, as five out of seven references were accurate, "it is not true" that the other two, original references were faulty, that they were somehow validated and acceptable and should not have been questioned. That's a strange view. Note also that "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence. I still assert that the definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and that the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited. Finally, when a user seeks to make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page, uses inadequate citations and refuses to desist without recourse to admin, that editor is disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Further false assertions and unsupported attacks by Redheylin (talk · contribs), after he was warned by admins and at closure of the ANI thread to stop [4]. And per Brumski's multiple comments above, Redheylin's analysis of the sources is wrong. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in one of the editors above continuing to hammer away at matters which are resolved. I have added a template to the top of this page that any further off-topic comments will be removed, as they are clearly disruptive editing, and certain parties have been warned about repeated disruptive editing often enough that there is no reason to issue any further warnings to them. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

Removed this tag. Redheylin (talk · contribs) has failed to make his point about a purported contradiction, and has failed to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Self-reverted my removal, pending discussion of Redheylin's actions. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Improved

I improved this article, and now the article has cites for every single sentence in the article. I will be back later to make further improvements and additions. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What the sources actually say

1. Fisher, George (2003). Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America. Stanford University Press. p. 319. ISBN 0804751358.

   "...Alford plea, in which the defendant adheres to her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Alford 400 U.S. at 38)"

2. Davidson, Michael J. (1999). A Guide to Military Criminal Law. US Naval Institute Press. p. 56. ISBN 1557501556.

   "Unlike the civilian system, the military does not permit an Alford plea, one in which the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt."

3. Raymond, Walter John (1992). Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms. Brunswick Publishing Corporation. p. 9. ISBN 978-1556180088.

   "Alford Plea. A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court. The plea is commonly used in local and state courts in the United States."

4. Daly, Kathleen (1996). Gender, Crime, and Punishment. Yale University Press. p. 20. ISBN 0300068662.

   "Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial."

5. Judge, Michael T. (November 2009). "Criminal law and procedure". University of Richmond Law Review. 44. University of Richmond Law Review Association: 339. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

   "When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense."

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Archived threads that degenerated into WP:NOT#FORUM. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Brumski

(Awaiting answer. Mistakenly archived on the pretext of "notforum")

At the time I notified Cirt of ANI report, the first two references provided by Cirt, both of which failed to support the text, were still the only two authoritative sources in place and both failed to give support to the assertion referred to them. After being informed of the report, Cirt added more references, who up to that point had asserted that these were sufficient - but the two sources in question were still cited as saying what they did not say, and have never at any time been cited on this page as examples of authoritative sources that DO NOT back Cirt's POV. You yourself questioned that the assertion was beyond doubt (as well as the validity of the related name-change), so did User:ChildofMidnight. Now you seem to suggest that, as five out of seven references were accurate, "it is not true" that the other two, original references were faulty, that they were somehow validated and acceptable and should not have been questioned. That's a strange view. Note also that "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence. I still assert that the definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and that the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited. Finally, when a user seeks to make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page, uses inadequate citations and refuses to desist without recourse to admin, that editor is disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment violates WP:NPA, as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates WP:NOT#FORUM, as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates WP:BATTLE. I ask you to please remove it. You could continue this line of questioning at User talk:Brumski if you wish to. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's an attack, report it. As far as I am concerned, I am still wondering why you cited sources as saying what they do not say, and why the sources are not cited as exceptions to a definition you present as universal on the present article, and why you wish to remove comments addressing this valid concern over NNPOV. Redheylin (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin has failed to even mention which sources he claims I have cited "as saying what they do not say". Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Must be in the archive! Fancy that. Good job I pulled out the above..... Redheylin (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin is making a very serious claim that sources were "cited as saying what they did not say". And yet despite being warned about making unsupported claims like this, he refuses to take the time to do any research and actually name the sources he is questioning. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's all there in the above letter. There's more detail in the archive but I do not seem to be able to see any archive icon on this page.....Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alford plea/Archive 1. Redheylin does not cite any sources on that page either. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

He did in the earlier discussion, which you just archived. I think it is the sources used in this version: [5] The discussion was here: Talk:Alford_plea/Archive_1#Tags. One of the sources you added there, i.e. Champion, calls the Alford plea a "nolo contendere" plea, which according to our article on it is different from a guilty plea. The other source, Gardner/Anderson, says that "Most state courts hold that an Alford plea is the "functional equivalent" of a regular plea of guilty." Given that part of the debate at the time was about moving the article from Alford plea to Alford guilty plea, which is by far the less common term, I think that Redheylin's concerns were at least understandable. The version at the time was confusing as to what nolo contendere meant; it said

"The Alford plea is a form of nolo contendere; where the defendant in the case states "no contest" to the factual matter of the case as given in the charges outlined by the prosecution. An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea. Therefore, a defendant's prior conviction via an Alford plea can be considered in future trials; and it will count as a "strike" if a three strikes law applies. On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt, and it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility."

Another reasonable concern is that the other cited source said

"Most state court hold that an Alford plea is the "functional equivalent" of a regular plea of guilty"

which could reasonably raise the possibility that this might require a more differentiated treatment. I am not a lawyer and don't know what the facts of the matter are; I am only saying that given the state of the article at the time, which you have improved tremendously since then, Redheylin's questions were not without logical basis. If the two of you could manage to get on a bit better, that would obviously help in teasing apart the facts of the matter, such as the difference between Nolo contendere/no contest plea and "Alford guilty plea", and any possible state-based differences. --JN466 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Redheylin (talk · contribs) this entire time to date has yet to give a presentation of any sources or claims or why those sources do not support them. Jayen466, fancy seeing you here, in light of your evidence presented against me in the Scientology arbitration case, I would ask that you refrain from interjecting yourself in disputes I am involved in at articles where you have had no prior involvement before. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you presented evidence against me too. I thought we could put these matters behind us. Your improving this article was a direct result of a discussion at Talk:Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)#Alford_Plea that we were both involved in. I don't believe you are being entirely fair to Redheylin here. He did present the sources, as google books links, in his first two posts at this thread, and said what he felt the sources did not back up, and you replied to him, saying he was incorrect. Looking at the sources and the specific wording he took objection to at the time, I think he may have had a point. But please let's not personalise this. --JN466 03:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:ARBSCI case, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) presented evidence and commentary attempting to make the case that I should be deemed a WP:SPA of all things because of my Featured Article contributions to Wikipedia. Jayen466 is aware of a request not to follow me around to articles he has previously never edited [6]. With his involvement at WP:ARBSCI, such behavior of interjecting himself into areas I am involved in may seem to be bad faith. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The assumption of bad faith is noted. --JN466 05:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am simply saying it could be seen as such, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is best for Jayen466 to avoid interjecting himself on pages he has never edited where I am a party to a dispute on said page. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. You know all of us were discussing details of this topic elsewhere, before you started overhauling this article, and I just wanted to point out that Redheylin had told you which sources he meant, what the discrepancy was, and that you had read his comment and replied to it. I agree though that nothing good can come from further discussion between us here, so I will bow out of this conversation, but not without acknowledging that you did a great job on the article here.

I am sorry we don't get on these days; we used to once. I guess arbitration does that to people. Take care, --JN466 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words about my work on this article. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing the article?? (NOTAFORUM) you know..... I could take your above suggestion that I did not provide the sources as a personal attack, but I am busy making wiki better. When you get to work, you do too, as you say. It's a clear choice Cirt - discuss improving article or disrupt. Redheylin (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, all of your above comments are not related to improvement of the article but instead to complaining about a prior version of it. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Redheylin (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Can you give a suggestion about a certain part of the article in its present state, on how to improve its quality further? Cirt (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

If I might make a suggestion, I don't think that it's productive to bring up the past here. Redheylin, you are mostly complaining about the article as it was, in a previous state. I understand that Cirt has accused you of engaging in personal attacks by complaining about the accuracy of sources without justification. I think that Jayen466, accusations of bias aside, made a reasonable defense of your claims. I think you could have been more specific with your complaints (it shouldn't take another editor to clarify) but what's done is done and I don't think that you should be censured for them. It appears to me that most of your concerns have already been addressed.

I don't think either of you have been disruptive. You have had a disagreement, you haven't handled it in the best way possible, but as long as things proceed constructively from this point forward there shouldn't be a problem.

To get back to the article, if I may, I see two complaints made that still apply to the current article. They are:

• "Admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence.
• Definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited.

Both of these complaints seem to be regarding the Definition section of the article. Does this seem to be an accurate summation of the current issues you have with the article, Redheylin? -- Atama頭 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama (talk · contribs), for this analysis. I can say that if they are not there already, from my research the overwhelming majority of WP:RS sources clearly state that the defendant must admit that there was enough evidence to find them guilty, as a direct part of the plea. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Atama. Thankyou, yes, you have hit it on the head. I'd mention that the previous discussion was archived, some discussion has also taken place on other pages. A couple more editors agreed there was some room for doubt as to the fine points but have withdrawn. I found it necessary to drag this part out of the archive and was reverted, hence the terse answers.... I take your point re "bringing up the past", but think I should explain myself. I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before, even if I reserve the opinion that my comments have driven this to some extent and that the thrust of the article has also been somewhat driven by the desire to make a point re. Osho, where the discussion began. I think, in the absence of definitive sources (and I understand implementation differs from state to state), the omission of the "evidence" clause in some authorities should be noted. And it seems to me that the main factor is; that the guilty plea is in the plaintiff's interests. I'd like to ensure no contradiction with the Alford case article. I am no expert and I'd consider it impudent actually to edit these articles, and so I have been requesting the oversight of a more knowledgeable editor than myself and shall be happy to turn the matter over to such an editor. Redheylin (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before - thank you very much, this is most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is most deserved. But PLEASE avoid COI/POINT temptation or even the appearance of it. I am trusting to your intelligence (obvious), your integrity (also) and your wikipedianity (outstanding). It is your recognition of my own contribution that I am awaiting! But I hate to cloud this sunny moment, so let me say it again:

I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before

(signed) Redheylin (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy Plea?

Why do I see this called the "Kennedy Plea" in news articles? For instance in the Michael Brown kidnapping case. BlauNacht (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)75.18.234.174 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Source? Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here are the sources:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64249

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall01/29639.pdf

http://www.wsaz.com/huntington/headlines/78925067.html

I was trying to search for the term on wikipedia and could not find it. So would it be a good idea to redirect "Kennedy Plea" to this page?BlauNacht (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I still don't know why it's called that. I wonder if it is a politically motivated kind of thing?BlauNacht (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be local only to West Virginia [7]. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of support but what of criticism

Is there any source of criticism of this plea process? The article could use a few words related to argument against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivan.t (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Differentiate from nolo contendre

What is the difference between an Alford plea and a plea of nolo contendre (No contest)? They seem to be the same thing. Either they should be merged or the difference between the two should be illustrated. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it (and IANAL), nono means the charge is too petty to fight. Alford is too expensive or too risky to fight; there is evidence that could convict you at trial (worst case, lying cops), but you want to claim that you did not do the alleged deed. Plead guilty to a lesser charge or deploy a bankrupting defense destroying your family with several appeals while you sit on death row. Maybe you'll beat it, maybe not.

The Barkley piece seems to have disappeared, here's another source for it -- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30144461_ITM htom (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Also known as"

The introductory paragraph says:

An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in the state of West Virginia,[1] an Alford guilty plea,[2][3][4] an "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" plea [5] and the Alford doctrine[6][7][8])

I think the label 'an "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" plea' is non-encyclopedic editorializing. I should be astounded if the plea is referred to by that name in any authoritative legal source. The cite given for that label is Barksdale, Titan (March 28, 2007). "(Not) Guilty – Lawyer in case that led to Alford plea says he worried about later questions". Winston-Salem Journal. p. B1.

There's no link so I can't check the article, but I'd guess that some person in the article referred to the plea by that name--but I don't think that's sufficient for using the name in the introductory paragraph. In any event, since the text isn't online, I can't check it.

I removed that name (with the comment Doubtful that this plea is seriously called an "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" plea), but my change was reverted by User:OtterSmith with this comment: Actually, it is. Think of lying cops; do you plead to a lesser charge or be executed if you don't. Your choice. Courts deliver decisions, not justice.)

It seems to me that OtterSmith's comment has nothing to do with whether this term is actually used for the plea in any authoritative setting. Rather, it's a criticism of how the plea is used, and an argument that the term would be an appropriate one for the plea. Even if so, that would make this appropriate for a "criticisms" section within the article, not the opening paragraph. And if it were in the "criticisms", we'd need a noteworthy source for that criticism. -- Narsil (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: From the previous talk section, I found an archived version of the article in question, at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30144461_ITM The phrase '"I'm guilty but I didn't do it" plea' does not appear in that article, in any form. It seems to me that using the phrase is, at the very least, original research (per WP:OR), and should come out of the article.

Note that I am not arguing about whether the phrase is accurate or apt, or whether the existence of the Alford plea is a good or bad thing. I'm just arguing about whether using that phrase in the opening sentence is appropriately encyclopedic. -- Narsil (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I invited User:OtterSmith to reply here, but didn't get a response. Since the source given doesn't support using the term an "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" plea, I'll remove that. OtterSmith, if you disagree please explain why here--thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narsil (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 August 2013‎

Definition section length

Is there a specific reason that the Definition section needs to repeat itself so much? It gives the same definition of the Alford plea, slightly reworded, seven times over the course of two paragraphs. BairaagiVN (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alford plea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528004330/http://www.mncourts.gov/district/5/?page=490 to http://mncourts.gov/district/5/?page=490

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alford plea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001060416/http://www2.state.id.us/ag/newsrel/2003/nr_nov032003b.htm to http://www2.state.id.us/ag/newsrel/2003/nr_nov032003b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126184107/http://library.law.emory.edu/1circuit/june2000/98-2178.01a.html to http://library.law.emory.edu/1circuit/june2000/98-2178.01a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)