Background
Supreme Court case
This form of plea is derived from the 1970 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case North Carolina v. Alford . [17] Henry Alford of Forsyth County, North Carolina was indicted for first degree murder in 1963. [18] [19] At the time under North Carolina law a conviction of first degree murder automatically brought with it the death penalty, unless the jury recommended otherwise, in which case the defendant would receive a mandatory life sentence. [20] [21] Alford said he was innocent, but the prosecution had significant evidence to the contrary. [19] Witnesses stated Alford had said he wanted to kill the victim, then grabbed his gun and left his residence. [19] Witnesses said that Alford subsequently declared he had killed the victim. [19] His defense advised Alford to plead to the crime of second degree murder because of the belief that the strong evidence would lead to a conviction. [19] He pleaded guilty to second degree murder in 1963. [18] He did so in order to avoid a possible death sentence. [18] Alford maintained he was innocent of the crime itself, but feared going to trial because of the capital punishment associated with the charge of first degree murder. [22] He was given a sentence of thirty years in jail. [18]
Alford appealed, and argued that his conviction for second degree murder should be overturned because he said the plea was coercive in nature. [23] The matter came before the Supreme Court, and in its ruling the court said that the trial judge in Alford's criminal case was appropriate in having accepted the defendant's plea of guilty. [18] The Court said that the decision to plead guilty while maintaining his innocence was a reasonable choice for Alford to have made at the time. [23] Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote the majority opinion. [18] The Supreme Court case was decided 5–3. [18] "[T]hat he would not have pleaded except for the opportunity to limit the possible penalty does not necessarily demonstrate that the plea of guilty was not the product of a free and rational choice", said the Supreme Court decision. [22] The Court ruled that a plea of guilty that was "a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action" was not a coercive decision. [21] Justice White wrote that, "Express admission of guilt is not constitutional requisite to imposition of criminal penalty." [20] In 1975, Alford died while in jail at the age of 57. [19]
Usage of plea
When a defendant indicates an intention to plead guilty by Alford plea, the judge asks two questions: "Do you now consider it to be in your best interest to plead guilty?" and "Do you understand that upon your 'Alford plea' you will be treated as being guilty whether or not you admit that you are in fact guilty?" [19] Prosecutors and defense lawyers characterize Alford pleas as a required method of lessening pressure of the nature of the justice process. [17] Both parties get to maneuver around not knowing what the outcome could be at trial, and are able to come to a resolution. [17] The Alford plea does not itself affect the sentencing process, and the convicted individual is sentenced just as if he had entered a normal guilty plea. [18] [20] The defendant may be hurt at the sentencing process by having used an Alford plea, as the judge may see this as a sign that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his actions. [24] Duke University law professor Robert P. Mosteller commented on this possible effect at sentencing, "They get you more harm than good." [24] Orange County, North Carolina District Attorney Jim Woodall said that the frequency of Alford pleas is higher with criminal cases involving a charge of a sexual offense, as the defendant does not wish to admit to their family and the public that they were responsible for the crime. [24] Psychologist Bob Carbo noted that sexual offenders undergoing treatment for their actions after being ordered to so under terms of their Alford plea cause problems because the first step in therapy is to take responsibility for committing the crime. [24] "We can't help this person if they're not willing to admit they did something", said Carbo. [24]
John Gulash, a lawyer on the Connecticut State Bar Association's criminal justice executive committee, acknowledged, "It's unfortunate, but it's a reality that you will receive, in most instances, a much more severe penalty if you lost after trial than if you pled before the trial." [17] Defendants gain the potential benefit of being able to tell possible employers after their conviction in a crime that they maintained their innocence and only pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine because of the nature of the situation and the evidence presented. [17] Professor of law at Quinnipiac University and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Meyer said of the Alford doctrine, "It's part of an idealist vision of a judicial system that it is for the adjudication of truth." [17] Meyer commented on what would happen were the Alford doctrine to become no longer applicable, "My suspicion is if the state could dispense with the Alford doctrine, over time, it probably wouldn't change very much the rate at which cases plead out. More than 95 percent of cases in federal court go by guilty plea. It's difficult to make the case that without the Alford doctrine, there would be an immense number of defendants who would end up going to trial." [17] Raleigh, North Carolina lawyer Wade Smith said that the frequency of application of the Alford plea is, "Fairly often. There are many times when people don't want to plead guilty, but then do, in fact, plead guilty." [18]
