Plea

Last updated

In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. [1] A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including nolo contendere (no contest), no case to answer (in the United Kingdom), or an Alford plea (in the United States).

Contents

Under common law systems, a defendant who pleads guilty will be convicted if the court accepts the plea. The court will then determine and impose a sentence. Plea bargaining involves discussions between the prosecutor and defendants to reach an agreement for a guilty plea in exchange for a more lenient punishment.

In civil law jurisdictions, a confession by the defendant is treated like any other piece of evidence. A full confession does not prevent a full trial or relieve the prosecutor from presenting a case to the court.

Types of plea

The most common types of plea are "guilty" and "not guilty".

Pleading guilty typically results in a more lenient punishment for the defendant; it is thus a type of mitigating factor in sentencing. [2] In a plea bargain, a defendant makes a deal with the prosecution or court to plead guilty in exchange for a more lenient punishment, or for related charges against them to be dropped. A "blind plea" is a guilty plea entered with no plea agreement in place. [3] Plea bargains are particularly common in the United States. [4] Other countries use a more limited form of plea bargaining. In the United Kingdom and Germany, guidelines state that only the timing of the guilty plea can affect the reduction in the punishment, with an earlier plea resulting in a greater reduction.

In the United States, a nolo contendere (no contest) plea is when the defendant submits a plea that neither admits nor denies the offense. It has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea because the trial avoids determining the defendant's guilt.

Peremptory pleas

These pleas claim that a case cannot proceed for some reason. They are so-called because, rather than being an answer to the question of guilt or innocence, they are a claim that the matter of guilt or innocence should not be considered.

They are:

Standing mute

Common law

When a defendant refuses to plead to an indictment it is called "standing mute", and it has been left to juries to decide the reason for the muteness, whether maliciousness or mental impairment. [5] Historically, during an arraignment an accused person would enter a plea, guilty or not, and after pleading not guilty would be asked how he was to be tried, being expected to answer "By God and my country". There were various penalties for refusing to do this if one was of sound mind. In cases of piracy or felony the accused was tortured by pressing until he entered a plea; Edward Coke reported details of such during a murder trial in the reign of James I. In 1692 Giles Corey, charged with Witchcraft in New England, was pressed until he died for refusing to answer "By God and my country" after pleading not guilty to the charges. [6] Obtaining pleas by torture was abolished by statute [7] in 1772.

US criminal procedure

A defendant who refuses to enter a plea is usually interpreted as giving a plea of not guilty; the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for instance, state, "If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty." [8] Similarly, if a defendant attempts to enter an unorthodox plea (a "creative plea"), this will usually be interpreted as a plea of not guilty. [9] One example of this was a defendant accused of a crime committed while protesting a nuclear power plant, who gave his plea as "I plead for the beauty that surrounds us". [10]

United States

"Voluntary and intelligent"

A defendant who enters a plea of guilty must do so, in the phraseology of a 1938 United States Supreme Court case, Johnson v. Zerbst , "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently". The burden is on the prosecution to prove that all waivers of the defendant's rights complied with due process standards. Accordingly, in cases of all but the most minor offenses, the court or the prosecution (depending upon local custom and the presiding judge's preference) will engage in a plea colloquy wherein they ask the defendant a series of rote questions about the defendant's knowledge of his rights and the voluntariness of the plea. Typically the hearing on the guilty plea is transcribed by a court reporter, and the transcript is made a part of the permanent record of the case to preserve the conviction's validity from being challenged at some future time. "Intelligent" has been described as "an elusive term, meaning that the defendant knows his rights, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and the consequences of his plea." [11] "Voluntary" has been described as also "an elusive term which has come to mean not induced by 'improper' inducements, such as bribing or physical violence, but not including the inducements normally associated with charge and sentence bargaining (except for inducements involving 'overcharging' by prosecutors)." [12] Empirical research has demonstrated that violent conditions in jails during pretrial detention of people who are legally innocent do improperly induce or coerce guilty pleas, [13] but this has not constitutionally invalidated the pleas under current Supreme Court precedent.

Virtually all jurisdictions hold that defense counsel need not discuss with defendants the collateral consequences of pleading guilty, such as consecutive sentencing or even treatment as an aggravating circumstance in an ongoing capital prosecution. [14] However, the Supreme Court recognized an important exception in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), in which the Court held that defense counsel is obligated to inform defendants of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Thus a defendant who is not advised of immigration consequences may have an ineffective assistance of counsel argument.

In the U.S. federal system, the court must also satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the guilty plea. [8] However, this safeguard may not be very effective because the parties, having reached a plea agreement, may be reluctant to reveal any information that could disturb the agreement. When a plea agreement has been made, the judge's factual basis inquiry is usually perfunctory, and the standard for finding that the plea is factually based is very low. [15]

Special pleas

Other special pleas used in criminal cases include the plea of mental incompetence, challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant's person, the plea in bar, attacking the jurisdiction of the court over the crime charged, and the plea in abatement, which is used to address procedural errors in bringing the charges against the defendant, not apparent on the "face" of the indictment or other charging instrument. Special pleas in federal criminal cases have been abolished, and defenses formerly raised by special pleas are now raised by motion to dismiss.

A conditional plea is one where the defendant pleads guilty to the offense but expressly reserves the right to appeal certain aspects of the charges (for example, that the evidence was illegally obtained).

In United States v. Binion , malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence. Although the defendant had pleaded guilty, he was not awarded a reduction in sentence because the feigned illness was considered to mean that he was not accepting responsibility for his illegal behavior. [16]

United Kingdom

"unambiguous plea"

A defendant who enters a plea of guilty must do so unequivocally. A guilty plea which is "imperfect, unfinished or otherwise ambiguous" [17] will not legitimate and should the court proceed to sentence on such a plea, there exist grounds for ordering a retrial or quashing the conviction.

In R v Atkinson, [18] the Court of Appeal held that, where a defendant entered a plea of 'Guilty, but i intended to defend myself' this could be held to be an unequivocal plea where the judge had clarified any ambiguity before accepting the plea.

Special pleas

Three special pleas (though not in the strictest sense of the word) exists in the criminal courts of England and Wales:

Demurrer: Which is an "objection to the form or substance of the indictment". [19] It is essentially no different than a motion to quash the indictment, however, it continues to exist in law. Unlike standard pleas, this must be entered in writing in advance of the arraignment.

Plea to jurisdiction: [20] Can be entered where the defendant believes the Crown Court does not have the power to hear the case before it, such a plea is usually entered where the offence being charged is summary only. Similarly to Demurrer, this plea must be entered in writing in advance.

Pardon: "It may be relied on where a pardon has been granted by the Crown on the advice of the Home Secretary in exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. It must be pleaded at the first opportunity (i.e. before arraignment if the pardon has by then been granted). In modern times, the plea has become obsolete." [20]

Plea in mitigation

A plea in mitigation is used during criminal law proceedings in many Commonwealth countries. It typically involves a lawyer telling a judge of extenuating circumstances that could result in a lesser sentence for an offender. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, an answer was originally a solemn assertion in opposition to someone or something, and thus generally any counter-statement or defense, a reply to a question or response, or objection, or a correct solution of a problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arraignment</span> Formal reading of the offence to a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, in some jurisdictions, the accused is expected to enter a plea; in other jurisdictions, no plea is required. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they generally include guilty, not guilty, and the peremptory pleas, or pleas in bar, setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of nolo contendere and the Alford plea are allowed in some circumstances.

An allocution, or allocutus, is a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty prior to being sentenced. It is part of the criminal procedure in some jurisdictions using common law.

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, even if the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offense is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use that concept often use that of an indictable offense, an offense that requires an indictment.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend". It is also referred to as a plea of no contest or no defense.

In common law jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

An information is a formal criminal charge which begins a criminal proceeding in the courts. The information is one of the oldest common law pleadings, and is nearly as old as the better-known indictment, with which it has always coexisted.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin circuit courts</span>

The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

A deferred adjudication, also known in some jurisdictions as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD), probation before judgment (PBJ), or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), is a form of plea deal available in various jurisdictions, where a defendant pleads "guilty" or "no contest" to criminal charges in exchange for meeting certain requirements laid out by the court within an allotted period of time also ordered by the court. Upon completion of the requirements, which may include probation, treatment, community service, some form of community supervision, or some other diversion program, the defendant may avoid a formal conviction on their record or have their case dismissed. In some cases, an order of non-disclosure can be obtained, and sometimes a record can be expunged.

Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1827</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1827 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, applicable only to England and Wales. It abolished many obsolete procedural devices in English criminal law, particularly the benefit of clergy. It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

References

  1. ↑ Garner, Bryan A., ed. (2019). Black's law dictionary (11th ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
  2. ↑ "Sentencing Council".
  3. ↑ Etienne, Margareth (Summer 2005). "The Ethics of Cause Lawyering: An Empirical Examination of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Cause Lawyers". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 95 (4): 1195–1260. JSTOR   3491403.
  4. ↑ Alschuler, Albert W. (1979). "Plea Bargaining and Its History". Colum. L. Rev. 79 (1): 1–43. doi:10.2307/1122051. JSTOR   1122051.
  5. ↑ "Standing mute". A Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Oxford University Press. 22 January 2015. ISBN   978-0-19-175825-6.
  6. ↑ Morgan, E. M. (1949). "The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination". Minnesota Law Review.
  7. ↑ The Felony and Piracy Act 1722 12 Geo. 3. c. 20
  8. 1 2 "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 11. Pleas". Cornell Law School.
  9. ↑ National Lawyers Guild, LA Chapter, Questions and Answers about Civil Disobedience and the Legal Process (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-27
  10. ↑ Hurst, John (August 10, 1978), "A-plant protestors being freed", Los Angeles Times
  11. ↑ McDonald, William F. (1986–1987), Judicial Supervision of the Guilty Plea Process: A Study of Six Jurisdictions, vol. 70, Judicature, p. 203
  12. ↑ McDonald, William F. (1986–1987), Judicial Supervision of the Guilty Plea Process: A Study of Six Jurisdictions, vol. 70, Judicature, p. 203
  13. ↑ Thomas, C., Cadoff, B., Wolff, K. T., & Chauhan, P. (2022), "How do the consequences of pretrial detention on guilty pleas and carceral sentences vary between misdemeanor and felony cases?", Journal of Criminal Justice, 82 (4): 102008, doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.102008, S2CID   253991546 {{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ↑ Chin, Gabriel J.; Holmes, Richard W. Jr. (2001–2002), "Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas", Cornell Law Review, Cornell L. Rev., 87: 697
  15. ↑ Turner, Jenia Iontcheva (Winter 2006), Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View, vol. 54, The American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 199–267
  16. ↑ Darani, Shaheen (January 2006). "Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association. 34 (1): 126–128. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
  17. ↑ R v Ingleson [1915] 1 KB 512
  18. ↑ R v Atkinson [2021] EWCA Crim 153
  19. ↑ R v Inner London Quarter Sessions Ex p/ Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1970] 2 QB 80
  20. 1 2 BLACKSTONE'S CRIMINAL PRACTICE 2023. [S.l.]: OXFORD UNIV PRESS US. 2023. pp. D12.52. ISBN   978-0-19-287029-2. OCLC   1348477920.
  21. ↑ "Sentencing - Overview". The Crown Prosecution Service. Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.