Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, [1] an Alford guilty plea, [2] [3] [4] and the Alford doctrine, [5] [6] [7] is a guilty plea in criminal court, [8] [9] [10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.
If the defendant pleads not guilty, a date is set for a preliminary hearing or a trial. In the past, a defendant who refused to plead (or "stood mute") was subject to peine forte et dure (Law French for "strong and hard punishment"). Today, in common law jurisdictions, the court enters a plea of not guilty for a defendant who refuses to enter a ...
A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions.
Cory Albert Blakley pleads not guilty during his arraignment at the Placer Superior Court in Roseville on Friday. He and his wife Kimberly Rachel Blakley are accused of murder, torture and child ...
The following is an incomplete list of notable individuals that have entered an Alford plea.An Alford plea (also referred to as Alford guilty plea [1] [2] [3] and Alford doctrine) [4] [5] [6] in the law of the United States is a guilty plea in criminal court, [7] [8] [9] where the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence.
Federal prosecutors are opposing a request by the president's son to appear virtually for his arraignment at a courthouse in Delaware. Hunter Biden’s lawyers say he'll plead not guilty to gun ...
A California measure capping probation for many offenders applies to plea deals that weren't final when the law took effect, the California Supreme Court ruled.
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty, and thereby waive the panoply of trial rights, including the right to counsel.