Discounted Justice: The Potential Misuse of Alford Pleas for Future Exonorees

Alford pleas allow defendants to plead guilty or no contest so that they may receive the benefit of lesser charges and sentences while maintaining their innocence. Alford pleas are an especially-compelling option for factually-innocent defendants, as the introduction of DNA evidence has led to the exoneration of many wrongfully-convicted defendants. In the case of the “West Memphis Three,” defendants Damien Echols, Jesse Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin were charged with the murder of three eight-year-old boys and imprisoned. DNA evidence eventually led to a reexamination of the case. Though Arkansas released the defendants from prison pursuant to conditional Alford pleas, it did not exonerate them. Thus, the defendants could not sue Arkansas civilly for wrongful imprisonment. The West Memphis Three demonstrates that, despite their allowing defendants to maintain their innocence, Alford pleas are subject to states’ abuse. Those who exercise Alford pleas cannot seek the statutory compensation granted to exonerees and could still face legal action by the state. Thus, Arkansas and other states often exploit these pleas, leveraging the immediate release of wrongfully-convicted defendants so that they can avoid compensating defendants in the future.

“[T]he case of Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin sets precedence in use of the Alford pleas as a legal strategy in future capital punishment cases, where states can leverage immediate releases to wrongly convicted indigent defendants in accepting pleas that save the state from paying compensation while restricting legal rights.” p. 375