Alford plea ( Archived) (15)

I watch alot of crime shows and this is a new one on me.

Once brought to trial a defendant can submit an Alford plea which to my understanding is where thr defendant knows that the prosecution have enough evidence to convict them, and so they know they will be found guilty, but in submitting the Alford plea they accept the inevitable guilty plea but without the admission themselves that they are guilty, so that they can receive a lesser sentence.



Why is this even a thing
I don't get it, why is there so many options to an obviously guilty person, so that they can get less time.
Are the courts that clogged up that they would accept this joke of a plea?
Is it new in America or has it always been there.
I've only come across a few cases where it's been given and funny enough in the last 3 I've seen it was given and accepted?

Is it not a slap in the face to the family of the victim.
Why should anyone who, premeditated, takes the life of another.

I put this in current events but I'm not sure it's all that current a thing.

Everybody is tough on crime but when they see the bill for incarceration it's time to hide.

Would rather foot it than be afraid to leave the house

minimum 3 chars
OACDL
Menu
Alford Pleas and Appeals: Maintaining Innocence During a Guilty Plea Does NOT Preserve Appellate Rights
By: Megan Patituce



The ability to challenge issues on appeal is not unfettered. Certain choices made at the trial level will impact what challenges may be raised on appeal. This applies equally to pleas and trials. For example, a bench trial will, almost without exception, significantly diminish appellate challenges available compared to those available after a jury trial. Likewise, a guilty plea will significantly limit the available appellate remedies in comparison to a no contest plea.

The Sixth District recently had cause to reaffirm that guilty pleas, no matter how entered, strip available appellate remedies. State v. Blackmon, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1036, 2020-Ohio-2857 (May 8, 2020). Mr. Blackmon faced two indictments, brought two months apart, stemming from one incident. On the day of trial, the state offered to dismiss the second indictment in exchange for a guilty plea to an amended charge in the first indictment. Mr. Blackmon entered an Alford plea and was sentenced consistent with the recommendation of the state.

Here, Mr. Blackmon sought to challenge the trial court’s failure to rule on a motion filed by the state to join the two indictments or, in the alternative, dismiss the state’s motion for joinder. Mr. Blackmon did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea, which the Sixth District found to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. That plea, despite being an Alford plea through which Mr. Blackmon maintained his innocence, operated as a waiver to any claims he may have had regarding the underlying joinder issue.

The Sixth District reiterated long-standing precedent that Alford pleas are still guilty pleas and, as such, result in a waiver of trial errors. The Sixth District determined that, even if his Alford plea had not waived his appellate rights as to the joinder issues, there was no plain error below. The Blackmon decision serves as a reminder that all decisions, be they at trial or plea, impact future appellate rights.

Printer-Friendly Version


facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonlinkedin sharing buttonemail sharing button
MEMBER BENEFITS
ABOUT THE OACDL
JOIN OACDL
SEMINARS

Yeah doesn't make any sense to me, I watch alot of crime too I never seen that before

I watched the video Jac...certainly a very interesting man...must watch more on him.

Thanks Mer.
I'm new to this and don't know even a fraction...but am interested in it.
If I come across again the cases that I saw that offered it then I will post a link here, but I watch so many I can't remember the names


And Jac the ones that I saw, there was no doubt in my mind, or that of the person who research it that he had done it.

Interesting that it's something someone innocent has to go with.
I would have always imagined it was only for those who were most certain guilty but wanted an easier and shorter term inside.

I've seen some interrogations where the person was innocent and the questioning and almost coercion they were subjected to make me sick.

I'll go find one case that shocked me and will let you make up your own minds on it, those that want to watch that is