Recent Usage - Salisbury, Maryland

The Defendant:
Keith Lamont Parker

On Friday, January 25, 2013, defendant Keith Lamont Parker of Salisbury, Maryland entered the Alford Plea in two separate cases--one for second-degree murder and one for possession with intent to distribute a dangerous substance (cocaine).

Judge Kathleen L. Beckstead sentenced Parker on January 28, 2013 to 25 years for the murder charge and 20 years (to be served concurrently) for the drug charge. In addition, due to a violation of probation in a 2006 case, he will be serving an additional eight years (to be served consecutively).

When looking at previous "Recent Usage" posts, this is the first case in which the defendant will receive a sentence with any real weight. Also, Parker's use of the Alford Plea did not allow him to drop any charges against him. However, there is no doubt that the Alford Plea allowed Parker to get a shorter sentence than he would have otherwise. For instance, his drug and murder sentences are to be served concurrently, whereas, without the Alford Plea, he would be serving 45 years (plus the additional 8 for violating his probation) instead of 25.

Parker's case may seem like the "best" way to use the Alford Plea, however we need to realize that even this case is not so cut-and-dry. Elmer Charles Duffy III, the son of the murder victim, was present through all of Parker's hearings. His main question was, and still will be, "Why?". Duffy was quoted saying "That's something that every man needs--his father. Eventually, one day, you'll get out of prison. My father doesn't have that chance."

Should judges take into account the family of the victim when deciding whether or not to accept the Alford Plea in a particular case? Thoughts welcome!


Information From:
DelmarvaNOW

Recent Usage - Rochester, Minnesota

The Defendant: Moses Gum Benjamin

On October 4, 2012, Moses Gum Benjamin was arrested after threatening his wife with a knife. He stated, "I can finish this right now. I'm serious. I will finish this right now," and threatened to take the kids with him. When the phone rang, his wife and children were able to escape out of the house.

This past Friday, February 1st, 2013, Benjamin was able to enter the Alford Plea in the Olmsted County District Court. This plea has allowed Benjamin to plead guilty to second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon in exchange for a dismissal of three counts of first-degree burglary and terrorist threats (which are all felonies), as well as a gross misdemeanor for domestic assault.

In the past, Benjamin was convicted of malicious punishment of a child in the year 2011.

The defendant's sentencing will take place March 28.


Food For Thought: 

Considering Benjamin's past history of crime, does it seem fair that the judge has accepted an Alford Plea in this case? What about the fact that the court is dismissing three felony counts in order to convict him for second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon?

According to Minnesota law, second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon will yield a sentence of no more than seven years and/or a fine of no more than $14,000. When we look at the dismissals, is the Minnesota court system making the right choice?



Information From:
Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
Mugshots.Com
Post Bulletin - Minnesota News

Recent Usage - Sandpoint, Idaho

Defendant: Christopher Robin Garlin

Last September, Garlin was arrested as an accessory to murder. The case stated that Garlin's 19-year-old roommate, Austin Blake Thrasher, shot and killed Michael Wyatt Smith who was seeing a 16-year-old girl that Thrasher was also seeing.

Garlin is being charged as an accessory to murder for withholding knowledge of the murder from law enforcement for four months before finally confessing what he knew in January 2012 while in jail due to theft and burglary charges.

On Monday, November 5th, 2012, Garlin was able to enter the Alford Plea in the 1st District Court of Sandpoint, Idaho. His case is set to wrap up on January 13th when he will be informed of his sentence.

Should Garlin be able to enter the Alford Plea in this case? It seems odd that the judge would accept such a plea when it technically means that Garlin admits there is enough evidence to convict him of withholding information but he still wishes to maintain his innocence. How can an individual maintain their innocence of withholding information while simultaneously admitting guilt for doing the same thing?

Thoughts welcome!



Information From:
Bonner County Daily Bee
San Francisco Chronicle

Recent Usage - Kalispell, Montana

Defendant: Dante Kier
Defense Attorney: Noel Lerrivee

On December 12, 2011, Dante Kier was arrested after breaking into a home in Kalispell, Montana and stabbing the homeowner in both the arm and mouth with steak knife. According to reports, Kier said he was in the area visiting relatives and decided to go into the house and try to kill the homeowner "because it felt good."

Originally, the defendant plead not guilty to multiple felony charges including:

1. Attempted Deliberate Homicide
2. Aggravated Burglary
3. Assault with a Deadly Weapon

The court, however, stated that he would be able to drop all charges except "Attempted Mitigated Deliberate Homicide" in exchange for a confession and guilty plea. After a psychiatric evaluation providing Kier as mentally unstable, he was able to enter the Alford Plea.

In Kier's case, the Alford Plea means he understands he committed the crime, but only under the control of his mental illness which the Flathead Beacon of November 17th, 2012 sees as a "reasonable explanation or excuse." Prosecution has since suggested Kier be placed under psychiatric care for a period of 35 years.

Kier's final court date is set for December 6th where he will be informed of his sentence. In the meantime, he is under the custody of the Flathead County Detention Center.



Does this seem fair? Considering the original definition of the Alford Plea states that the defendant does not fully admit guilt and therefore retains part of their innocence (at least on paper), should the court have been able to bend the definition for Kier's case? Should this plea include those with mental instability? Thoughts welcome!


Information From:
The Flathead Beacon

The West Memphis Three

As part of my persuasive speech, I mention the wrongful conviction of three West Memphis, Arkansas teenagers: Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin, and Damien Echols. These three, nicknamed the West Memphis Three after several movies following their trials were released (Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills), were convicted of the murder and mutilation of three fourth grade boys: Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers.

The Defendants

The Murder Victims

Throughout the trial, there was absolutely no trace evidence of any kind that would link these three to the murders. The main piece of "evidence" that was used in their conviction was a coerced confession by Jessie Misskelley, a boy of sixteen at the time whose IQ (72) was only points away from being deemed not "intellectually functioning." After being locked in a interrogation room for nearly twelve hours (only an hour of which was recorded), he gave a statement incriminating Jason and Damien in the murders.

This coerced confession, along with the fact that Damien and his friends listened to Metallica, looked as though they were part of "cult," and owned books on the Wiccan religion, were the primary "evidence" used to convict.

Their sentences?

Jason Baldwin:      Life without parole.
Jessie Misskelley:  Life plus 40 years.
Damien Echols:    Death.

After 18 years and 78 days of imprisonment, and exhausting all of their appeals, the three were given a document from the state of Arkansas saying that if they plead guilty, the state would bargain down their sentence to the exact amount of time already served and all three would be able to walk away--though their records would not be expunged and they would never be exonerated. Jason held back on the deal, because he knew it would keep him from ever being seen as innocent, but because Damien was on death row, the three decided to take the deal.

The result? They used the Alford Plea. The state firmly believes there was enough evidence to convict, but allowed the three to still "assert their innocence." However, since they will never be exonerated, it is the same thing as if they would have plead guilty. In addition, the West Memphis Three's plea bargain means they can never sue the state of Arkansas for wrongful imprisonment/conviction.

WM3 Released August 2011

So although Jason, Jessie, and Damien were able to get released from prison in August 2011...who really won this case?

Feel free to click "Comment" below and leave your thoughts on the case. Interested in the West Memphis Three? Take a look at the "Paradise Lost" movie series, which followed their original case, appeals, and finally their release. Damien Echols has also written several novels about his conviction and time in prison which would be interesting reads.

Information From:
Free the West Memphis 3
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review - West Memphis Three and the Alford Plea
West Memphis Three - Wiki

Usage by State

Below you will find a list of Alford Plea usage by state in alphabetical order. This only shows whether or not the plea is allowed to be used, not under what circumstances. As I compile more research, I will add that information as well!

Total Number of State Alford Bans: 3

State	Alford Plea Used?
Alabama	Yes
Alaska	Yes
Arizona	Yes
Arkansas	Yes
California	Yes
Colorado	Yes
Connecticut	Yes
Delaware	Yes
Florida	Yes
Georgia	Yes
Hawaii	Yes
Idaho	Yes
Illionois	Yes
Indiana	NO
Iowa	Yes
Kansas	Yes
Kentucky	Yes
Louisiana	Yes
Maine	Yes
Maryland	Yes
Massachusetts	Yes
Michigan	NO
Minnesota	Yes
Mississippi	Yes
Missouri	Yes
Montana	Yes
Nebraska	Yes
Nevada	Yes
New Hampshire	Yes
New Jersey	NO
New Mexico	Yes
New York	Yes
North Carolina	Yes
North Dakota	Yes
Ohio	Yes
Oklahoma	Yes
Oregon	Yes
Pennsylvania	Yes
Rhode Island	Yes
South Carolina	Yes
South Dakota	Yes
Tennessee	Yes
Texas	Yes
Utah	Yes
Vermont	Yes
Virginia	Yes
Washington	Yes
West Virginia	Yes
Wisconsin	Yes
Wyoming	Yes

History of the Alford Plea

The Alford Plea originated in 1970 during the U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

Defendant, Henry C. Alford, was charged with first-degree murder. At the time, North Carolina's criminal justice system upheld capital punishment in cases of first-degree murder unless the jury recommended life in prison instead. With so much evidence stacking up against him, Alford's attorney advised him to plead guilty in order to get a deal and therefore avoid the death penalty.

Alford decided to plead guilty--though "disclaiming guilt"--and was sentenced to thirty years in prison for second-degree murder. When his case reached the Court of Appeals, they found that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was being motivated by a fear of capital punishment. The court then found that the judge had done nothing wrong by accepting Alford's guilty plea in court.

This court case then started a new type of plea: The Alford Plea. Like Alford, his plea means that--in the eyes of the law--the defendant is pleading guilty. However, he or she is still asserting their innocence.

Thus far, no definitive research has been done on the number of times the Alford Plea has been used in court, however, Wolf Harlow of the Department of Justice states that in just the year 2000 alone, she estimates the Alford Plea was used in approximately 67,622 cases. With so many defendants clinging to use of the Alford Plea in order to get a lesser sentencing, it comes as no surprise that this is becoming a huge problem within our criminal justice system.


Information From:
Alford Pleas in the Age of Innocence
Bloomberg LAW: North Carolina v. Alford
Cornell Law School: North Carolina v. Henry C. Alford
Justia: North Carolina v. Alford