The plea: 'No Contest' = B.S.

NecroTrance

NecroTrance

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 2, 2000
Messages
1,051
Location
Lakeland, FL USA
Anytime I've been in court, which has been a few, they ask for a plea...Here in FL we have three types of pleas: Guilty, Not Guilty, and No Contest. The judge usually say that No Contest is like saying you think it's in your best interest to let the court decide any further actions. Sort of like the fifth amendment.

My question is...Who's stupid enough to fall for that?!

Pleading No Contest hold implications with it like:

1) I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.
2) I'm guilty, but I don't want to admit it.
3) I'm guilty, but I'm too lazy to say it.
4) I'm not guilty, but I'm stupid, so I'll go down for nothing.
5) This sucks, I wanna go home.

There can be many more...Obviosuly, all of those are not the right things to say in front of a judge. Just like cops always think that pleading the fifth usually means you're hiding something, wouldn't this be like the same thing? Only the problem is that if you say this to a judge, he can seriously screw you. I always plead guilty if I did it...Who else out there figured out this little known fact about court rooms?
 
If you have the choice between "guilty" and "no contest", then "no contest" is a much smarter plea, believe me.

You should NEVER plead guilty unless you have a very, very good reason to do so (e.g. it's part of the deal the DA cut you).

You are trying to decipher some common sense "implications" of pleading no contest. This is a mistake. When it comes to the law, you can pretty much forget about common sense. You have to consider the legal implications, and the legal implications of pleading guilty are many.
 
Isn't it the case that a no contest plea effectively covers one's ass when it comes to being tried in a civil court? That is to say, if you plead guilty to a murder, judgement is automatic in a wrongful death type suit whereas if you plead no contest, an additional burden must be met? This example isn't meant to state fact, but I am simply questioning if this example is a true representation of one of the reasons for pleading no contest.
 
It's also called an Allford plea, named after the defendant in the case. You may want to research the Allford case to get more info. I'm not sure of the correct spelling but I think it is Allford.
 
Alford. And if any defendant ever gets an opportunity to plead nolo contendere or "no contest", he should take it. Besides civil implications, it leaves a lot of wiggle room in dealing with friends, family and community about whether the defendant really did it or just gave up.
 
what about pleading no contest to speeding tickets? Thats the same thing as guilty because you pay the same fine, its still reported to the dmv and u get screwed, and the points are still the same. Why vote no contest then? Plus, its only a speeding ticket right?
 
but if you plead guilty dont you get a reduced sentence for telling the truth and not wasting the courts time??
 
^^^
Good point. The Alford plea is one of those funny little things in the law that allows someone to not have to utter those horrible words, "guilty, your honor." Yet, you are essentially treated the same as if you had pleaded guilty. :\
 
If you're talking about speeding tickets, you should ALWAYS plead NOT GUILTY.

I've had a couple tickets dismissed because the officer did not show up to court. I also had a couple tickets reduced to lower fines/demerit points by plea bargaining with the prosecutor. And I went to trial for another ticket and got it dismissed because the prosecution could not produce the radar calibration records in the courtroom to satisfy my pre-trial discovery request (even though they had mailed them to me weeks before).
 
^^^ Absolutely correct. Traffic tickets are dismissed on technicalities all the time, but this option is not available to you if you plead guilty.

I am impressed with all your knowledge and the only thing I have to add that a plea of no contest is just that... that the defendant chooses not to contest the charges. It is not an admission of guilt- merely that you aren't going to fight those specific charges.
 
...Which shows a lack of care, a lack of remorse.

Trust me, except in serious cases, such as where the penalty can be severe, in which case I would find a damn good lawyer and build a case for my innocence...But other than those cases, no contest is major fucking bullshit. It was named after this Alford guy, right? So, the Supreme Court ruled it a federal law because some guy whined? So, do you want to remind that judge about his profession's historical folly or do you just want to look him in the eye with sorrow and say, "I did it, your honor...I do the crime, I pay the time. Please make it as painless as possible." Of course, you could say, "I'm too poor to hire a lawyer, I want to fight this case because I don't want to be penalized, but since I can't afford a lawyer, I'll plead no contest, thus I'll be basically lying because since I believe I'm not guilty, I should plea not guilty, but I'm too lazy to deal with the bullshit surrounding a trial." If you were a judge, which would you prefer to hear? Which sounds more intelligent? People...You must remember that judges are not robots. They work and just like the McDonald's grill man works with sandwiches, the judge works with people's crimes. They think, they feel, they can see implications...Plead Not guilty...You will thank me later.
 
^^^^

Remorse or not, one should follow the advice of his or her attorney. If pleading no contest can, in fact, secue a better deal for the accused, one should not avoid the no contest plea simply because the judges "think and feel." Don't assume that people are too lazy simply because of their plea; there are many, many issues that factor into each specific case.
 
Necro, I don't think anyone suggested anything a silly as pleading "no contest" where a "not guilty" was the way to go. A nolo is appropriate when the choice is that or "guilty". And oftentimes prosecutors will oppose, or judges not permit, a no contest plea, so it's certainly not a "gimme".
 
...You all have valid points, which really makes me feel even more disturbed...

Scenario...
No money for lawyer, no desire for a public pretender. Minor penalty, say a M1(Misdemeanor, first degree)...You did it and there is substantial evidence to support that claim. Why would you allow yourself the CHANCE to imply anything short of, "I'm terribly sorry for making such a mistake." to the judge? I just can't understand that. The fact most of you see a no contest plea as a god send, seriously makes me question the intelligence, of some people.
 
You didn't explain that in your original post. Given THOSE circumstances, i.e.

- you did it
- there is substantial evidence against you
- you cant afford a lawyer & do not want a public defender
- it's only a misdemeanor

Your best bet is to set up an appointment with the prosecutor and negotiate a plea bargain. It is still to your advantage to plea NO CONTEST instead of GUILTY
 
No Contest is an acceptance of the punishments that go along with a guilty plea.

The advantage of No Contest is that the case cannot be used referenced against you in the future, say, in a second offense.

Thats the difference.

Most corporate mal doers know and love this plea, as it allows for repeat incidences.... usually along the lines of health crimes, as in the case of the explosive Ford Pinto case...
 
Hmmm...Maybe I'm looking into the legal system too deeply? If that's even possible, it's probably the most extensive on the planet, probably the universe, ha...Damn Americans...Well, I tell you what...

When I was in front of a judge entering my plea and so were many others, everyone that said 'no contest' got to stay in jail until sentencing...I said 'not guilty' and he let me out on house arrest until my sentencing. That's when I got to thinking. Maybe it's just the judge.
 
The whole discussion here's been about what the actual sentence is. Come back once you've been sentenced and tell us whether you got off any better or worse than the no contest folks. The judge could have been giving you a nice time at home before you got a tougher sentence imposed..
 
NecroTrance said:

When I was in front of a judge entering my plea and so were many others, everyone that said 'no contest' got to stay in jail until sentencing...I said 'not guilty' and he let me out on house arrest until my sentencing. That's when I got to thinking. Maybe it's just the judge.
Click to expand...

Maybe its just the charge, bail amount, personal bond background, or the fact that those people have accepted the punishment...
8)
 
O.K, here is the way it works. The judge says "I understand you are pleading no contest is that correct? Are you pleading no contest because of the negotiating your attorney has done on your behalf? And, you believe that if this case went to trial and the jury believes the state's evidence that you may receive a more severe punishment?"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top