Topics
Baltimore City's reverse redlining lawsuit dismissed.
Baltimore Sun confuses the public by trying to define probation before judgment.
Court of Appeals considers whether an arbitration agreement is binding.
How Dixon maintains her innocence by making an Alford Plea.
Lessons from the Redskins suing their fans.
Local print media confuses National Media with their headline regarding Suggs? Protective Order
McNair's death reminds us that everyone needs a Will.
Mega banks take notice: raise consumers interest rate and don?t expect to be paid.
Redskins sue their fans.
Suggs consenting to Protective Order was a wise move.
Recent Updates
How Dixon maintains her innoncence by making an Alford Plea.
On January 6, 2010, citizens of Baltimore City and the State of Maryland were shocked to learn that Mayor Shelia Dixon ended her criminal battle of alleged corruption and entered an Alford Plea to one count of perjury. As a result of this plea deal, Mayor Dixon will resign, coincidentally, on February 4, 2010, which is the same day as her sentencing hearing. It is expected that she will receive probation before judgment, no jail time, 500 hours of community service, $45,000 fine, and 4 years of probation.
Although there are many questions regarding this plea deal, one question I have been asked is “what is an Alford Plea?”
Normally, a Defendant must enter a plea of not guilty, guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. An Alford plea is a plea where the Defendant maintains his/her innocence, but concedes the State has sufficient evidence that if the State maintained its prosecution, he/she will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where a party enters an Alford plea, the trial Court must determine on the record that the plea is voluntarily, the defendant understands what he/she was charged with, and the defendant understands the consequences of the charges, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.
Ultimately, an Alford plea is a guilty plea.
The Alford Plea is memorialized in the United State Supreme Court Case of North Carolina v. Alford. In 1963, Henry Alford was charged with First Degree Murder by the State of North Carolina. Alford had allegedly killed his victim after a fight. Back in 1963, North Carolina had a law whereby if you pled not guilty, and the Jury found you guilty and did not recommend life in prison, the only sentence the Judge could enter was death. However, if a Defendant pled guilty, then the Defendant would avoid the death penalty. Alford entered a plea of nolo contendere and avoided the death penalty. Ultimately, the appeal of the conviction ends up at the United States Supreme Court where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plea was not entered voluntarily as it was made under the fear of the death penalty.
The main reason a Defendant makes an Alford plea is because a person maintains their innocence, but recognizes that State has sufficient evidence to convict. Many trial Judges will ask Defendants if they are pleading guilty because they are in fact guilty. If a Defendant cannot answer yes, the Judge will strike their guilty plea and enter a not-guilty plea. There is a good chance at that point that the plea deal is nullified. However, when a trial Judge hears an Alford plea, the Judge will not ask that question.
