Plea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
Criminal procedure
Investigating and charging crimes
Criminal investigation

Arrest warrant · Search warrant
Probable cause · Knock-and-announce
Exigent circumstance
Reasonable suspicion
Search and seizure · Search of persons
Arrest · Detention
Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.)
Grand jury
Criminal prosecution

Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi
Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law
Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition
Habeas corpus · Bail
Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system
Charges and pleas

Arraignment · Information · Indictment
Plea · Peremptory plea
Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain
Presentence Investigation
Related areas of law

Criminal defenses
Criminal law · Evidence
Civil procedure
Portals

Law · Criminal justice

In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a civil or criminal case under common law using the adversary system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a criminal defendant, at arraignment or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether he or she is Guilty or Not Guilty.

The concept of the plea is one of the major differences between criminal procedure under common law and procedure under the civil law system. Under common law, a plea of guilty by the defendant waives trial of the charged offenses and the defendant may be sentenced immediately. This produces a system under American law known as plea bargaining.

In civil law jurisdictions, there is generally no concept of a plea of guilty. A confession by the defendant is treated like any other piece of evidence, and a full confession does not prevent a full trial from occurring or relieve the plaintiff(s) from its duty of presenting a case to the trial court.

[edit] Peremptory pleas

Main article: Peremptory pleas

These are pleas which claim that a case cannot proceed for some reason. They are so called because, rather than being an answer to the question of guilt or innocence, they are a claim that the matter of guilt or innocence should not be considered.

They are :

  • autrefois convict - where the defendant has already been convicted of the charge (and thus cannot be tried again)
  • autrefois acquit - where he has previously acquitted of the same charge (and hence cannot be tried again, under the doctrine of double jeopardy),
  • plea of pardon - where he has been pardoned for the offence.

[edit] United States

A defendant who pleads guilty must do so, in the phraseology of a 1938 Supreme Court case, "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently". The burden is on the prosecution to prove that all waivers of the defendant's rights complied with due process standards. Accordingly, in cases of all but the most minor offenses, the court or the prosecution (depending upon local custom and the presiding judge's preference) will engage in a plea colloquy wherein they ask the defendant a series of rote questions about the defendant's knowledge of his rights and the voluntariness of the plea. Typically the hearing on the guilty plea is transcribed by a court reporter and the transcript is made a part of the permanent record of the case in order to preserve the conviction's validity from being challenged at some future time.

Other special pleas used in criminal cases include the plea of mental incompetence, challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant's person, the plea in bar, attacking the jurisdiction of the court over the crime charged, and the plea in abatement, which is used to address procedural errors in bringing the charges against the defendant, not apparent on the "face" of the indictment or other charging instrument. Special pleas in federal criminal cases have been abolished, and defenses formerly raised by special plea are now raised by motion to dismiss.

In United States v. Binion, malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence. Although the defendant had pled guilty, he was not awarded a reduction in sentence because the feigned illness was considered to mean that he was not accepting responsibility for his illegal behavior.[1]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved on 2007-10-10.