Entering Judgment on a Plea of Nolo Contendere: A Reexamination of North Carolina v. Alford and Some Thoughts on the Relationship between Proof and Punishment
![handle is hein.journals/arz17 and id is 1000 raw text is: ENTERING JUDGMENT ON A PLEA OF NOLO
CONTENDERE: A REEXAMINATION OF
NORTH CAROLINA V. ALFORD AND
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PROOF AND PUNISHMENT*
Neil H. Cogant
It has been generally recognized that the plea of nolo (or non vult)
contendere performs no function not already well served by the plea of
guilty, and this is generally true insofar as the present day nolo con-
tendere is concerned. Nolo contendere is, for example, acceptable to
serious and nonserious charges alike;' it is, for the purposes of punish-
ment, the same as the plea of guilty.' The Supreme Court has held
that upon entry of nolo contendere, an accused may be both fined and
* The historical parts of this paper were given on November 1, 1974, in summary
form at a meeting of the American Society for Legal History.
t Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University; Faculty Editor,
Human Rights. B.A. 1966, LL.B. 1969, University of Pennsylvania. Member of the
New York and Pennsylvania bars.
The author wishes to thank John H. Langbein, Professor of Law, University of Chi-
cago, for his kindness in reading and commenting upon an earlier draft of the historical
parts of this paper and in saving the author from going too far astray. Professor Lang-
bein is of course not responsible for the errors that have been retained. The author
wishes to thank also Paul Gay, Associate Librarian, Biddle Law Library, University of
Pennsylvania, for his kindness in making available the materials of Biddle's exhaustive
collection.
1. See ABA PRoJ Ecr oN MuINIUM STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STANDARDS
RELATING TO PLEAS OF GUILTY § 1.1(a), Commentary at 16 (Approved Draft, 1968)
(case for the plea of nolo contendere not strong enough to justify a minimum standard
supporting its use); ALI CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 209 & Commentary at 642
(Official Draft, 1930) (all pleas other than pleas of guilty and not guilty abolished).
See generally Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with Advisory
Committee Notes, 62 F.R.D. 271, 277 (1974) [hereinafter cited as Advisory Committee
Notes].
2. See Lenvin & Meyers, Nolo Contendere: Its Nature and Implications, 51 YAILE
L.I. 1255, 1258-63 (1942).
3. Advisory Committee Notes, supra note 1.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/arz17&div=40&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most