Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Gregory on July 26, 2010, 03:48:28 AM
-
Comment has been made as to the meaning of the reported plea of Tommy Shelton to plead guilty to the charges in Virginia. It has been suggested by some that TS was really innocent of the charges, but forced by circumstances to plead guilty.
Depending upon what the law of the State of Virginia says, TS may have had two other options. These are a plea of:
1) Nolo Contendere:
Latin for "no contest." In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which he does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment. The plea differs from a guilty plea because it cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action. For example, pleading nolo contendere to criminal charges side steps possible estoppel claims from being filed in a civil lawsuit. Nolo contendere pleas differ from Alford pleas in this regard. See Alford plea.
Some states do not allow defendants to ask the court's permission to plead nolo contendere. In federal cases, the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure allow such pleas, with the court's permission.
See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992), Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005).
2) Alford plea:
Also known as a "best-interests plea," an Alford plea registers a formal claim neither of guilt nor innocence toward charges brought against a defendant in criminal court. Like a nolo contendere plea, an Alford plea arrests the full process of criminal trial because the defendant -- typically, only with the court's permission -- accepts all the ramifications of a guilty verdict (i.e. punishment) without first attesting to having committed the crime. The name, Alford plea, is taken from North Carolina v. Alford 400 U.S. 25.
NOTE: The above is taken from Cornell University's Legal Information Institute.
A guilty plea is an admission of guilt. The two listed pleas above save the costs of a trial, accepts the punishment that a guilty plea would bring, but does not admit guilt. I do not know if Virginia law would have allowed TS to make either of those pleas. If VA Law does allow it, it appears that TS chose not to make either of them. In any case, it appears that he chose to plead guilty, if the reports are accurate.
-
You are correct Gregory. However, I do know that the prosecutor called Alex and asked him if he would be willing to accept this deal. She gave him 24 hours to think about it. Alex negotiated it with his legal council that he has personally retained. They told Alex to make it clear that he would not be a willing participant in a "no contest" plea. They wanted an admission of guilt.
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
Duane, I don't agree with the plea bargain myself, but can still recognize that 90% of cases in the U.S. involve plea bargains and only 10% go to trial. I can also understand that TS can't plead 'no contest' even though he wants to, if the Prosecutor doesn't offer that deal, and Alex and the other complaintant wouldn't agree to it. Why can't you?
edited to remove name.
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
Duane, I don't agree with the plea bargain myself, but can still recognize that 90% of cases in the U.S. involve plea bargains and only 10% go to trial. I can also understand that TS can't plead 'no contest' even though he wants to, if the Prosecutor doesn't offer that deal, and Alex and ****** wouldn't agree to it. Why can't you?
I am a bit curious how you knew the other victim's name???????? At any rate I think that was un-excusable. I ask that this post be reported !! And that be deleted immediately!!
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
Duane, I don't agree with the plea bargain myself, but can still recognize that 90% of cases in the U.S. involve plea bargains and only 10% go to trial. I can also understand that TS can't plead 'no contest' even though he wants to, if the Prosecutor doesn't offer that deal, and Alex and the other complaintant wouldn't agree to it. Why can't you?
I am a bit curious how you knew the other victim's name???????? At any rate I think that was un-excusable. I ask that this post be reported !! And that be deleted immediately!!
I know people, but I didn't realize all didn't know his name. I apologize. I have edited my own post. You might want to edit your own also. ;)
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
Duane, I don't agree with the plea bargain myself, but can still recognize that 90% of cases in the U.S. involve plea bargains and only 10% go to trial. I can also understand that TS can't plead 'no contest' even though he wants to, if the Prosecutor doesn't offer that deal, and Alex and the other complaintant wouldn't agree to it. Why can't you?
I am a bit curious how you knew the other victim's name???????? At any rate I think that was un-excusable. I ask that this post be reported !! And that be deleted immediately!!
I know people, but I didn't realize all didn't know his name. I apologize. I have edited my own post. You might want to edit your own also. ;)
Total garbage. You did it intentionally.
-
I appreciate you removing it Pat. Just to be clear no one knows his full name, not even ANY of the supporters of the victims. And he (the victim) want's it to remain that way.
-
I appreciate you removing it Pat. Just to be clear no one knows his full name, not even ANY of the supporters of the victims. And he (the victim) want's it to remain that way.
Got it. Thanks.
-
No, that's not it. Sam, the legal expert, said it was just a technicality because Tommy COULDN'T pleast "no contest." So that HAS to be the truth. Sam wouldn't lie, right? : sarcasm :
Duane, I don't agree with the plea bargain myself, but can still recognize that 90% of cases in the U.S. involve plea bargains and only 10% go to trial. I can also understand that TS can't plead 'no contest' even though he wants to, if the Prosecutor doesn't offer that deal, and Alex and the other complaintant wouldn't agree to it. Why can't you?
edited to remove name.
Pat:
Not trying to start a fight, but didn't you recently post, that if Tommy takes that deal, you consider it to be a lie? Just curious. Also, you are correct Alex and the other victim would not allow a "no contest" plea under the advice of their attorney's. Sam- has previously post that Tommy's plea was not an admission of guilt, that was a lie. Tommy had two options, plead innocent and go to trail, or plead guilty to a plea deal. Now, it's in the judges hands....