{{disputed}}
{{CrimPro}}
In the law of the [[United States]], an '''''Alford''''' '''plea''' is a [[plea]] in criminal court. In this plea, the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose [[sentence (law)|sentence]] as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime; however, in many states, such as Massachusetts, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed. It is the prospect of an ultimate dismissal of charges which engenders most pleas of this type.

The Alford plea differs slightly from the [[nolo contendere]] ("no contest") plea. An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea. Therefore, a defendant's prior conviction via an Alford plea can be considered in future trials; and it will count as a "strike" if a [[three strikes law]] applies. On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt, and it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility. Nevertheless, courts do not have to accept a plea of nolo contendere, and usually do not, except in certain nonviolent cases.

This plea originated in the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case of [[North Carolina v. Alford]] ([[1970]]), [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=400&invol=25 400 US 25]. Under subsequent case law, an ''Alford'' plea generally has the same effect as a plea of guilty with respect to sentencing, and use of the conviction as an aggravating factor if the defendant is later convicted of another offense.

Some critics have spoken out against the ''nolo contendere'' and ''Alford'' pleas on the moral grounds that they undermine public confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the criminal justice system, sending some people to jail who are unrepentant or innocent; and that they dodge the "morality play" aspect of a criminal trial, in which upright civilization is vindicated and the community sees that the guilty are punished. In addition, critics of the ''Alford'' plea claim it contradicts the pleas originally established in the judicial system. Others see this as the major benefit of these pleas.

==References==
* {{cite journal
| last = Bibas
| first = Stephanos
| year = 2003
| month = July
| title = Harmonizing Substantive Criminal Law Values and Criminal Procedure: The Case of ''Alford'' and Nolo Contendere Pleas
| journal = [[Cornell Law Review]]
| volume = 88
| issue = 6
| issn = 0010-8847
| url = http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/four/nolo.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-05
}}

[[Category:Pleas]]