State of the States: A Survey of Statutory Law, Regulations and Court Rules Pertaining to Guilty Pleas Across the United States

Due to cultural, demographic, and geographical differences, states vary significantly with respect to their criminal court caseloads and legal policies. This article systematically reviews state statutes, regulations, judicial rules, and case law from the jurisdictions’ highest appellate courts to analyze how these differences influence state and federal plea policies. It specifically focuses on nine topics, subdivided into two categories: “established areas” and “other legal issues.” The established areas include sentence differentials, discovery, Alford/nolo contendere pleas, time-limited plea offers, and collateral consequences instructions. The other legal issues include baseless pleas, judicial involvement in plea agreements, pre-indictment pleas, and waiver of rights. There is an in-depth review of each aforementioned topic, intended to serve as a device that can be utilized in future studies on guilty plea practices in the United States. Ultimately, the results of this research indicated a significant diversity in whether/how jurisdictions have broached regulation of the plea-bargaining process.

“In the U.S., states have individual authority over their own criminal justice policy and procedure. States vary considerably geographically, demographically and culturally, as well as with respect to criminal court caseloads and cultural and structural impediments to policy change. As a result, states can be expected to vary considerably with respect to how they have (or have not) legislated different issues related to the guilty plea process and with respect to the outcomes of policies that they may have in common.” p. 389