Difference Between Guilty And No Contest - Nolo Contendere

Nolo Contendere

• Home
• Nolo Contendere
• Nolo Contendere and the UCMJ
• History
• FAQ's
  • Known as No Contest
  • Effect of this Plea
  • Guilty vs No Contest
  • Accepting Either Plea

• Home
• Nolo Contendere
• Nolo Contendere and the UCMJ
• History
• Known as No Contest
• Effect of this Plea
• Guilty vs No Contest
• Accepting Either Plea

Difference between Guilty and No Contest

The purpose of entering a no contest plea is often to avoid being sued civilly for essentially confessing to a crime, which is the basis of a guilty plea. If the no contest plea restricts someone from sueing you civilly for an action, why would anyone enter a plea of “guilty” to charges against them? Pleading guilty means you admit the charges, you have no defense for your actions, and the court can go ahead and levy punishment against you. The court first ensures that you entered the guilty plea voluntarily and that they have some reason to believe you are telling the truth. It is not unheard of, for example, for a parent to plead guilty to a crime to protect their child. The prosecutor must explain what evidence they would have had against you had you pled not guilty and a trial had been set. Pleading no contest or nolo contendere means you admit no guilt for the crime, but the court can determine the punishment. The judge will hold a conversation with the defendant to ensure s/he understands the plea and the possible punishment. This gives the defendant an opportunity to explain the circumstances and why s/he is pleading no contest instead of guilty or not guilty. Through this conversation, the judge gains a better perspective on the situation. The defendant has some possibility of getting a less harsh sentence than might be handed down after a jury trial. Restrictions on pleading no contest vary between states, and in some jurisdictions it is prohibited. It is unlikely that the court will allow you to enter a nolo contendere plea while vigorously denying your guilt to the media. This would be known as an Alford plea, based on a 1963 murder case in North Carolina. The defendant pled guilty to second-degre murder to avoid the death penalty, but still vocalized his innocence. Neither the nolo contendere plea nor the Alford plea could later be used in a civil action as evidence against the defendant.

States/Abbreviations
AK	Alaska	LA	Louisiana	OH	Ohio
AL	Alabama	MA	Massachusetts	OK	Oklahoma
AR	Arkansas	MD	Maryland	OR	Oregon
AZ	Arizona	ME	Maine	PA	Pennsylvania
CA	California	MI	Michigan	RI	Rhode Island
CO	Colorado	MN	Minnesota	SC	South Carolina
CT	Connecticut	MO	Missouri	SD	South Dakota
DE	Delaware	MS	Mississippi	TN	Tennessee
FL	Florida	MT	Montana	TX	Texas
GA	Georgia	NC	North Carolina	UT	Utah
HI	Hawaii	ND	North Dakota	VT	Vermont
IA	Iowa	NE	Nebraska	VA	Virginia
ID	Idaho	NH	New Hampshire	WA	Washington State
IL	Illinois	NJ	New Jersey	WI	Wisconsin
IN	Indiana	NM	New Mexico	WV	West Virginia
KS	Kansas	NV	Nevada	WY	Wyoming
KY	Kentucky	NY	New York	DC	Washington DC

• Home
• Nolo Contendere
• Nolo Contendere and the UCMJ
• History
• Site Map

FAQ's Known as No Contest Effect of this Plea Guilty vs No Contest Accepting Either Plea

DISCLAIMER: NoloContendere.Org HAS PUBLISHED THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE FOR INFORMATIONAL USE ONLY. DUE TO CONTINUALLY CHANGING LAWS, THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION MAY BE OUTDATED AND NOT 100% ACCURATE. THE CONTENT WITHIN THIS WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR CONSIDERED AS THE LAW. USE OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. Copyright © NoloContendere.Org, All Rights Reserved.