Talk:Alford plea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page used to say it was the same as nolo contendere. How is it different fron _nolo contendere_? 64.168.29.29 06:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Has been addressed in the article - a conviction obtained on an Alford plea can be used in subsequent or collateral proceedings, whereas a nolo adjudication cannot. Ellsworth 16:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ever see it addressed in the history. Just wrote a paragraph about it; everyone please add. The comparison is interesting. Tempshill2 17:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral consequences

Cut this sentence:

It is not an admission of guilt, and provides one major advantage to defendants: It may not be used later as the basis for civil proceedings seeking monetary or other damages against the defendant, as can a guilty plea.

This is not uniform in all jurisdictions: some do treat an Alford plea as an admission and do allow its use in civil cases. Ellsworth

[edit] Where allowed

Are there any states where an Alford plea is not accepted? Indiana is one IIRC...Ellsworth 20:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q:Why plea Alford instead of guilty?

So what are the advantages of an Alford plea instead of a guilty plea? I guess one of the comments above indicates that it's not always better in terms of civil proceedings, but where it is, that's the advantage, right? Are there no other advantages? -- Creidieki 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The advantage is that it allows the defendant to maintain his innocence. Some defendants are willing to accept the conviction or do probation or some jail time to avoid the risk of much more jail time after a trial, but they don't want to admit to something they didn't do. There's often little legal difference between this and a regular guilty plea, but it makes the defendant feel better. PaulGS 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)