Types of Pleas Within the Courts

When it comes to information society is privy to, most individuals have only heard of three different pleas: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Nolo Contendere (or the "No Contest" Plea). Now that you're familiar with the Alford Plea, you know that there are really four different types of pleas a defendant can use within the court systems. This post is just to solidify and expand upon what you already know by putting them all side-to-side.

• Guilty: By using this plea, the defendant admits that he or she committed the crime he or she is being charged with. This is a complete admission of guilt and thus a waiver of all rights for the defendant. This plea requires consent of the court to be used.
• Not Guilty: With this plea, the defendant denies any and all charges brought up against him or her. Therefore, the court system now has the burden to prove a case against (or for) the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. 
• Nolo Contendere (No Contest): This plea means that a defendant does not admit guilt, and will be subjected to punishment as if they entered a guilty plea. This plea is only applicable to the current proceedings. For example, if they enter a Nolo Contendere Plea within a criminal court for assault, the defendant cannot then use the plea for a civil suit against the defendant. This plea, like a guilty plea, also requires consent from the court to be used. 
• Alford Plea: With the Alford Plea, defendants are virtually using a "Not Guilty" plea--by still maintain their innocence--but will be treated in court as if they have entered a "Guilty" plea. Therefore, the defendant will be subjected to the same punishment as if they entered a guilty plea, though in the majority of cases the Alford Plea allows a defendant to bargain down their sentence. This plea, like the Guilty Plea and Nolo Contendere Plea, must be approved by the court in order to be used--though it is also not accepted in 3 state court systems. 

Also, it's important to note that if a defendant fails to enter a plea (or outright refuses), the court must then enter a plea of "Not Guilty" for the defendant. It also falls on the court to determine that the plea was made voluntarily and did not result from force, threats, or promises. 

All Information From:

LegalMatch

Recent Usage - Fairfax, Virginia

Defendant:
Noah Rucker

Noah Rucker was 29 when he was the girl's swim coach at James Madison High School. Now, at 40, a girl has come forward and states that she had inappropriate sexual contact with Rucker when she was 17 years old. Back in June of 2012, Rucker was arrested and charged with three felony counts of "taking indecent liberties with a minor."

However, Rucker was able to use the Alford Plea in this case, which dropped the three felony counts down to a single misdemeanor of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." According to the Washington Post, Rucker is expected to serve approximately six months in prison. Along with time in prison, Rucker will be prohibited from coaching swim and having contact with the woman who came forward.

Not only did Rucker abuse his position within the school system, but now he will most likely get away with just six months in prison? When did our society begin to think that it's okay to give sex offenders a slap on the wrist for these crimes?

According to the Virginia Department of Health, statutory rape laws have two levels: "carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age," and "someone 18 years or older having sex with someone age 15, 16, or 17 years old." The second would apply to Rucker's case, and is seen as a class one misdemeanor, meaning that he could serve up to a year in jail as well as a $2,500 fine. However, no where in the Washington Post article does it say that Rucker was charged with "statutory rape."

In addition, the mere fact that Rucker continued to coach swimmers in his region following these acts in 2001 is a problem of its own. Yes, it's true that one criminal act should not completely ruin a person's life. However, Rucker continued the job that put him in the position to commit a crime for years after the act. How can we ever be certain that the defendant has not committed similar acts with woman all over the region during these past 12 years?

29% of rape victims are ages 12-17, the exact range of ages Rucker would have had access to while coaching girl's swim. Not only that, but about a half of rape victims never report the crime.

Why don't victims report their rapes?

1. 23% feel that rape is a "personal matter."
2. 16% of victims fear backlash for reporting the crime
3. 6% of victims feel that the people are biased

With statistics like these, it comes as no surprise that many men and women who have been raped or sexually assaulted will never come forward with details of the crime, or even the name of the offender. While I would never suggest criminalizing someone based on what could be true, we need to realize the facts of sexual assault show that Rucker may very well have had sexual contact with more teenage girls during his time as a swim coach.


Let's keep our minds open, but realize concurrently the injustice that is taking place within Rucker's case. The Alford Plea should not be used in sexual assault cases, let alone any cases. Most, if not all, victims of sexual assault need the admission of guilt to move forward. So while the six months in prison may give Rucker time to rethink his actions, that woman who came forward will never hear him say, "Yes. I sexually assaulted you and I plead guilty to the crimes set in front of me."

Thomas B. Walsh, Noah Rucker's attorney put it best. "Mr. Rucker denies any responsibility in the case. In light of the charges and in all fairness to the parties involved, an agreement was reached to reduce the charges to misdemeanors."

I don't know about you, but if I was sexually assaulted by my high school swim coach, I don't think I would have "agreed" to reducing his charges and letting him get away with never admitting responsibility.


As always, thoughts welcome.


Information From:
RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
The Washington Post
VDH - Virginia Department of Health

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