Alford Pleas in the Age of Innocence

Alford pleas allow defendants to plead guilty while simultaneously asserting their innocence. Considering that these defendants are convicted of a crime they legally assert they did not commit, Alford pleas raise concerns of promoting wrongful convictions for the sake of accelerating the judicial process. Of the four kinds of pleas in the U.S. criminal justice system (guilty, not guilty, no contest, and Alford), the Alford plea is the most controversial, yet it has generated the smallest amount of empirical data. This study seeks to understand the kind of defendants who choose to enter an Alford plea by examining their legal and demographic characteristics, as well as comparing them with defendants who entered guilty, not-guilty, and no-contest pleas. Alford pleaders were found to be generally similar in both legal and demographic characteristics and received similar sentences to those who pled guilty and no contest. Alternatively, when contrasted with defendants who pled not guilty, Alford pleaders differed in age, level of education, and race. The legal characteristics (e.g., pre-trial detention, number of times consulted with attorney, etc.) of Alford pleaders and not-guilty pleaders also significantly differed. This study is the first of its kind in the field of Alford pleas, and it sets the stage for further research on a contentious and pervasive issue in the criminal justice system.

“Arguably, an appropriate starting point to systematically investigate actual innocence among those who have pleaded guilty would be Alford pleas. First, they unambiguously claim to be innocent. Second, unlike traditional guilty pleas, sufficient evidence of guilt should have been established (by means other than the plea itself), indicating that there may be a richer set of documentation and legal records from which to investigate [wrongful convictions].” p. 487