Alford Plea Agreement
The determination of the jurisdiction of a defendant to continue the deliberations and the registration of the plea is subject to questions or other inquiries by the Tribunal. When a court questions a defendant at the time of the deliberation on drug, drug or alcohol poisoning, the court may rely on the manner, conduct and/or manner in which the defendant reacts to the questions posed by the court. However, a defendant is not required to withdraw his plea. The accused may choose to start from the conviction, knowing that the court is not bound by the pleading agreement or that the accused must withdraw his pleading. What prosecutors have proposed is a controversial deal, dubbed Alford`s plea. This little-known plea allows the defendants to maintain their innocence, denouncing themselves guilty. Prosecutors can pressure unjustly convicted defendants to take it by threatening to hand them over for sentencing, which can take months or even years. For Thompson and Owens, who had already spent decades behind bars for a crime they had not committed, participating in the plea meant they could leave free men. But in the eyes of the law, they would still be convicted murderers and would not be able to file a complaint for illegal incarceration. For prosecutors, Alford`s plea holds victories over the book and lets them pass without admitting any fault. The agreements also keep cases closed, with the real culprits forgotten. For policy on the approval of pleading agreements involving accused members of Congress, congressional candidates or federal judges, see JM 9-16.110. U.S.
attorneys cannot accept the plea known as Alford`s plea (see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 p.Ct. 160 (1970)) (if the accused asserts his innocence with respect to the charge to which he intends to plead guilty), except in the most unusual circumstances and only after the recommendation has been approved by the assistant attorney general in charge of the object or associate attorney general; the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General. In all cases where the accused enters a guilty plea but denies that he or she actually committed the offence, the lawyer should make an offer of evidence to the government for all facts known to the government to support the conclusion that the accused is indeed guilty. See JM 9-27.440, Principles of Federal Prosecution (examination of the explanatory memorandum to this Directive); JM 6-4.330 (authorization of Alford`s means in tax matters). The court should ask a defendant if he or she has made any promises or considerations that were not recorded by counsel in the minutes or in the written agreement to plead. In his book American Criminal Justice (1972), Jonathan D. Casper made the Supreme Court`s decision, saying, “The Alford decision recognizes the plea system and recognizes that a man can preserve his innocence, but pleads guilty to minimize his potential loss.”  Casper comments on the impact of the Supreme Court`s decision to require, in such a plea, evidence of guilt: “By requiring that there be some evidence of guilt in such a situation, the decision attempts to protect the `true` innocents from the temptations to which pleadings and defense counsel may subject them.  Cases of administrative offences can be dealt with by the Court of Justice in a simplified manner compared to the criminal complaint procedure.
Article 11 essentially contains a list of subjects that the court must deal with when deliberating an accused who pleads guilty. . . .