Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#8 North Carolina v. Alford
66 Plays7 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.
HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.
The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'Relitigated' Podcast
00:00:01
Speaker
Hi, I'm Nikki. Welcome to Relitigated, the show where five friends who are absolutely not lawyers attempt to retry a real Supreme Court case. This is episode eight, North Carolina v. Alford. Two quick notes before we get started. First, as always, we try our best to represent the facts and decisions in the case as accurately as possible, but we're not lawyers and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice.
00:00:30
Speaker
Second, if you enjoy the podcast, please support us by subscribing, rating, leaving us a comment, and telling your friends. Help us get the word out. If you like, you can also find us on YouTube and Instagram. Our handle is relitigatedpodcast. Thank you so much for your help.
Meet the Hosts and 'Justices'
00:00:50
Speaker
Okay, with that out of the way, let's start the show. Oh man, I'm so excited to not be the most insufferable one here tonight.
00:00:59
Speaker
Did this just turn into a science podcast? So on that note, welcome to the Relitigated podcast. I'm your host, Nikki, and I'm joined by my co-host, Jarrett. Hello. We also have with us three justices, except they are not justices or lawyers or legally formed at all. ah First, we have our first time Associate Justice Mike. Hello. Then we have Associate Justice Chris.
00:01:29
Speaker
Hello, not a lawyer. And of course, we have our Chief Justice, Sarah. Hello, also not a lawyer. And neither is Mike, might I add. Oh, yes. Yeah, absolutely. But I am a judge. Aren't we all? So, Jarrett and I, ah also not lawyers, we have picked a real Supreme Court case. Our justices ah do not know what case we have selected.
Case Preview: North Carolina v. Alford
00:01:59
Speaker
Jarrett will introduce the case to us and walk us through the details, and the justices are free to ask factual questions during this time. Next, we'll move into oral arguments where today I will represent the petitioner or the appellant, ah the person complaining, and Jarrett will roleplay as the respondent ah or the appelee.
00:02:23
Speaker
ah We each get seven minutes to make our case, during which the justices can interrupt us and ask us questions. When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions. The final rulings do not need to be unanimous. Majority opinion wins.
00:02:42
Speaker
Even if two or more justices agree in principle, they can disagree as to why. Once we've finished our hearing and Sarah's court makes a ruling, Jarrett and I will reveal what the Supreme Court actually decided and talk about how we feel about the actual results. And with that, Jarrett, please introduce us to our case for today.
00:03:04
Speaker
Yeah, definitely. So our case for this episode is North Carolina v. Alford. It begins one evening at what is known as a party house in Winston-Salem. If you're curious what a party house is, ah so am I.
00:03:21
Speaker
As best as I can figure from doing some quick Googling, it's a commercial establishment where people can gather to party and socialize, kind of like if you went to a bar or a club, but it was set up more like a house with separate rooms and such. That's but that the best I could figure out. I'm sorry. Anyway, after answering a knock at the door, the operator of this particular party house was struck down by a single shot of a shotgun.
00:03:49
Speaker
Following an investigation, a gentleman we will refer to as HA was suspected of committing the crime. Apparently, earlier in the evening, HA had come to the party house with a female companion and rented a room, but they left the room very quickly, supposedly because HA had no additional money. On the way out, HA demanded that the woman leave with him, but the operator stepped in and said that she could stay if she wanted.
00:04:16
Speaker
After an argument, HA ran off with a woman's coat and 15 or 20 minutes after that, the operator was shot dead. HA was indicted on a charge of first degree murder, which in North Carolina is a capital offense, which means it could be punishable by death if he was found guilty by a jury.
Crime Details and Witness Accounts
00:04:35
Speaker
In his defense, HA gave his lawyer a list of several witnesses that could vouch for his innocence.
00:04:42
Speaker
Unfortunately, after questioning all but one of them, his lawyer discovered that they, quote, gave statements that strongly indicated his guilt, end quote. One witness stated that H.A. said aloud that he was going to kill the victim, who he identified by name. H.A. then allegedly kept repeating that he was going back to the party house before retrieving his shotgun and four shotgun shells and then leaving.
00:05:08
Speaker
A second witness saw H.A. walk by with a gun and about 30 minutes he saw H.A. walk by again going the opposite way, this time stating that he had shot the victim. Perfect. A third witness was a neighbor that H.A. told, quote, if the officers come looking for me, tell them I haven't been here. End quote. This is amazing. The officers did come looking for H.A. and afterwards the neighbor asked H.A. why he had asked him to say what he did.
00:05:37
Speaker
And H.A. allegedly responded that he had shot a man. Perfect. Oh, yeah. Can't wait for the drop to realize how whatever is going on here gets to the Supreme Court. yeah finally very cut and dry Finally, a woman recounted that later in the evening, H.A. had bought her two drinks at a bar and told her that he had shot a man and would be going away for a long time.
00:06:01
Speaker
Oh my God, I love this guy. He is just so honest. Is this a Johnny Cash song? Fills that way. ah Given the strong evidence against him, HA's lawyer suggested to him that he plead guilty to second degree murder. If he didn't and a jury convicted him of first degree murder, then he could face the death penalty. Ultimately though, the decision rested with HA and he chose to plead guilty though he asserted that he was innocent. a innocent The prosecutor accepted H.A.'s plea, but the judge decided to hold a hearing before the court accepted the plea. A police officer and two witnesses testified, essentially walking through the charge that following an altercation, H.A. returned home, stated he would kill the party house operator, retrieved his shotgun, returned to the party house, and shot the operator.
00:06:51
Speaker
H.A. also took the stand at the hearing where his lawyer asked him questions about why he was pleading guilty, and he stated that it was to avoid potentially receiving the death penalty, but that he was actually innocent. The court then asked H.A. if, given that he was claiming to be not guilty, he really did want to enter a plea of guilty for second degree murder, and H.A. confirmed that he in fact did because he wanted to avoid the death penalty.
00:07:18
Speaker
With that, H.A. was found guilty by the court and sentenced to the maximum of 30 years imprisonment. Following his conviction, H.A. would appeal to the state's appeals court, arguing that his guilty plea was the result of fear and coercion. The state court disagreed, however, finding that H.A.'s plea had been, quote, willingly, knowingly, and understandably, end quote, made.
00:07:43
Speaker
They also noted that HA had followed the advice of competent counsel and that the prosecution's case was strong. Undeterred, HA a appealed to twice to federal courts, first to the district court and then the court of appeals. They each rejected HA's appeal, finding his plea was made voluntarily and that he had effective counsel.
Main Question: Validity of Guilty Plea?
00:08:04
Speaker
This did not stop H.A. from appealing yet again, and while the district court once more denied the appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed H.A.'s conviction on the grounds that the threat of death of the death penalty forced him to plead guilty. This reversal was appealed to the Supreme Court, and so it falls to us to take up the case.
00:08:27
Speaker
So our question for this episode is, is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also asserting that they are innocent and only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty? Well, we're going to find out. Because we're going to answer the question. Yeah. And then they're going to tell us at the end. they also the question yeah tell yeah Also true.
00:08:53
Speaker
Also true. So I have to ask if there are any factual questions, but about halfway through reading witness statements, I wasn't sure that there were any facts that ah were left to be uncovered. Yeah. Just circling back one time quickly on this, did he say that he killed a guy?
00:09:14
Speaker
Was he saying he wanted to kill a guy? At which point? Exactly. Probably many points, right? Yes. He was alleged to have said in front of witnesses, but in court, he denied. Right, right, right. Okay. You know, you put alleged in front of anything these days and it just changes the whole vibe.
00:09:36
Speaker
I mean, I'm, I'm good if we want to keep going. I would, uh, I'd like to learn more about party houses and maybe we should have gone to one for research purposes, but that's a good idea. We should have to circle back on that later. Yes. The court wants to see a party house. Poor planning.
00:09:55
Speaker
I think we're, sounds like we're probably ready to get to the deliver. Uh, that sounds like we're probably ready to get to oral arguments. Yeah, let's deliberate. You know what? Let's go straight to deliberations. No, argue a few must. I am ready to hear arguments. Oh, you haven't already immediately taken the side. I'm not going to argue. Um.
00:10:20
Speaker
Doesn't know what side that is yet. That's fair. but is like true That's fair. Time will tell. Nobody's safe. Okay. Well, Nikki, I am prepared to start the clock whenever you begin. So the floor is yours. Okay. I am ready to begin and I will be ah taking the position of the state of North Carolina. So, ah ah Chief Justice, Associate Justices,
00:10:50
Speaker
H.A. had an attorney who consulted with him on multiple occasions, as well as with his sister and friends. The lawyer laid out for him very clearly his charge, his right to a jury trial, and the potential punishments for first degree murder, which include life imprisonment or the death penalty. The lawyer also went over with him his rights to appeal, including before the governor.
00:11:20
Speaker
This all means that HA knew his situation. HA's lawyers could certainly give advice, but could not make the final decision about
Arguments: Voluntary vs. Coerced Plea
00:11:30
Speaker
how to plea. That was up to HA. a And HA, in this case, gave written authorization to the defense lawyer to enter a plea on his behalf and did that written authorization with witnesses.
00:11:43
Speaker
He also made the decision to plea by his own free will, just as he exercised his right to appeal in this case. And when he took the stand, he testified that he was aware of what he was doing and why he was doing it. Although he has stated that he is innocent, HA is essentially engaged in a plea bargain. His movement through this process involved being aware of the options available to him,
00:12:11
Speaker
identifying for his lawyer information relevant to the case and potentially to his defense, assessing possible outcomes, and then making a decision in light of his goals and his legal interests. He did all of that with an interest in not only avoiding the death penalty, but also to get a sentence that allowed the possibility of release.
00:12:34
Speaker
In this case, there was a lot of evidence against H.A. There were several witnesses, including people who knew him and were familiar with him. The fact is the state had a strong case against him, and sometimes all of the options realistically available to a defendant are undesirable. This is an individual who is in a bad spot.
00:12:58
Speaker
Just because the state has a strong case and ah basically that the evidence shows that it is more and more likely the defendant committed the crime as alleged does not make the case coercive. It's not coercion just because the objective facts are not how you like them and they disprove your defense.
00:13:20
Speaker
A.J.'s decision to plead guilty is an exercise in pragmatism. He was reasoning through his case, he reasonably predicted outcomes, he problem solved, and he determined a course of action. During the criminal process, the government can certainly protect your rights, but it cannot protect you from your from consequences of your behavior or from the trail of objective evidence casting its eye upon you.
00:13:47
Speaker
And because this case is so straightforward, because it was so clear that he knew what he was doing in making his legal decision, that is the conclusion of my argument. Thank you very much. Wow. Short and sweet. Yeah. i Yeah. yeah ah I have no questions. yeah That's kind of what I was thinking. I was like, yeah, I mean, he kind of knew what he was doing. Right. ah But anyway,
00:14:15
Speaker
I have no, I have no factual questions or yeah. The court was too stunned to speak.
00:14:26
Speaker
ah Yeah. Yeah. I don't have any factual ah questions that I need cleared up either. Pretty sound argument. Jared, once again, I mean, we find ourselves at this crossroad, right? and Once or twice? A couple of times now.
00:14:47
Speaker
I'm gonna I'm gonna stop the clock for you Nikki. You still have about Just under three minutes if you want to reserve your time Yeah, I'll reserve my time. Okay for the folks at home. ah The idea is a one of the folks who are arguing, if they don't use all their time, they can reserve it. So when the other person goes, optionally the first person could could use the rest of their time after. So it's like an opportunity to sort of go before and then after if you have time left over. so
00:15:19
Speaker
That's what Nikki's going to do. I mean, she might not end up feeling like she needs it. And based off of what the justices just said about her argument, she may not. Or she may. Do you feel coerced to reserve your time to avoid any penalties? Absolutely not. I make this decision freely ah and I have the right to use or not use as I see fit. All right. There you go. i Nice. Nice. Thank you, Nikki. That was great.
00:15:49
Speaker
Thank you, Your Honor. There's got to be some some objection or paperwork I can file at this point. and No, no, no, no. Everything is fine. What do I have to do to have someone call me, Your Honor? ah Well, you probably got to get your hands on a powdered wig first. Oh, yeah, true. Yeah, shit. Make it more sticky. We didn't tell you about that. No, I just I was just dragged off the street and given a microphone.
00:16:16
Speaker
Yeah. That sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah, that feels right. It's okay. You'll get there one day, you know? Right. Yeah. Well, I am prepared to be treated like a hostile witness, whatever the timer is ready. All right. so All right. And it will begin once you begin.
00:16:37
Speaker
All right, let's do this. Ms. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, I submit to you that the guilty plea entered by HA was won by the state of North Carolina through coercion and fear. In order to escape death, which any of us would do, HA had no choice but to volunteer himself for 30 years imprisonment without due process. All the while, HA asserted that they were innocent of the crime as charged.
00:17:03
Speaker
Imagine being accused of something you didn't do and the state says, well, we can go to trial and you can try and prove your innocence, but if it doesn't work out, we're going to kill you. Alternatively, take this plea deal and you live guaranteed. None of us would be thinking rationally in that moment. You would be so consumed by fear as you realized it was you by yourself versus all the resources that the state could muster against you.
00:17:32
Speaker
you would have to waive your rights to save your life. And no matter how loudly you professed your innocence, the state would accept your plea and the prosecutors would notch another win on their belt. This good cop, bad cop approach that the law takes is a clear violation of HA's Fifth Amendment rights.
00:17:52
Speaker
The burden is on the state to make their case, and the courts should only be interested in vigorously finding the truth. When a man stands before you and says they are innocent, but if it saves their life, they'll say they did the crime, then the courts have a duty to determine what is reality instead of ignoring the contradiction and just moving on.
00:18:14
Speaker
The implementation of North Carolina's laws incentivized defendants to waive their rights to a jury trial. With all the power that the state has, it is the responsibility of the courts to protect us from the state, not to be complicit in rubber stamping its desired results, especially when someone stands before you, but before them, and says that they did not do it.
00:18:40
Speaker
We certainly cannot entertain that this plea was entered voluntarily. No man staring down the possibility of execution is really being given a choice. I would go so far as to say that the threat of death is enough to put someone into a headspace where we can no longer consider that what they do or say is the result of a reasonable mind.
Justices Deliberate on Fairness
00:19:04
Speaker
If you are looking for a comparison, look no further than torture. The louder you voice your innocence, the harder the torturer puts their screws to you. At some point, the pain and fear are so great that it doesn't matter that you're innocent. You will say whatever it is that the torturer wants. In this case, the torturer wants you to plead guilty without making them prove it. And so HA relented. But we all know that torture seldom yields the truth.
00:19:33
Speaker
Lastly, I am concerned about the divide that this approach to law creates between the haves and the have-nots. We have created a system in which an individual with means is better able to resist the state by affording better and more lawyers and experts. Those lacking in finances, such as HA, can't fight back with the same power.
00:19:57
Speaker
The result is a system where prosecutors can disproportionately coerce our poor countrymen and women into waving their Fifth Amendment rights. Make no mistake about it, this puts an enormous amount of power into the hands of prosecutors. The death penalty is not the only thing that prosecutors can use to put a defendant in an impossible situation and get them to do what they want.
00:20:23
Speaker
the bending of a defendant's will through what is essentially false choice is very easily done. Question. Go ahead. Would you then say that it would be more appropriate to not allow guilty pleas in the courts?
00:20:46
Speaker
A guilty plea is fine, but when the choice- Like a plea deal such as this, right? Like, cause a lot of people take guilty pleas in order to avoid the death penalty. I mean, innocent or not, I would think.
00:20:59
Speaker
and the situation shouldn't be an option it's In a situation where the prosecutor said, I'm going to charge you with first degree murder and when I try you, the state is going to kill you. And then you come back and say, well, what if I just plead to second degree murder and the states and the prosecutor's just like, yeah, I'll take that win.
00:21:17
Speaker
But then the prosecutor was always okay with an option short of the death penalty. It sounds like a pretty shitty prosecutor. But the process all it's the process the representative of the state using their power and their their wide latitude to put somebody into a position where they didn't then have to really do much extra work. They can do that to anybody. They can do that to any of us at any time. And the poorer of us don't have the means to fight back against the state in that situation. So whatever you think of of of my specific client, HA, you have to think about it beyond just this particular individual.
00:21:58
Speaker
They could do this to anybody, regardless of what the evidence is. And once you put the choice in front of somebody between the resources of the state trying to prove that you're guilty, and if they accomplish that task, they can murder you.
00:22:16
Speaker
i i don't think that we're I don't think that's a choice anymore for the defendant. I think the defendant has to take the plea deal and if they have to do it, that's not due process. That's a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights and that's an overreach of the state ah that cannot be justified. Fair enough.
00:22:37
Speaker
It is our belief that the state court acted in error by allowing the state to cajole HA into waiving their rights, and as such, HA's conviction must be thrown out. If the Fifth Amendment means anything, if no one If no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a due process, then we must acknowledge that this good cop, bad cop routine cannot be allowed to continue or to stand. With that, I yield to questions. No questions. I dig i think that the guilty plea um itself, I mean, yeah, I mean, he he was I think he made peace with with what he did.
00:23:22
Speaker
He never, and he always asserted innocence. It was the state that ultimately put him in a position to save his own life to just say, all right, fine, I'll sign your paper, but I'm innocent. I see, I see. Okay. So, but he, I mean, he,
00:23:39
Speaker
in the In the heat of the moment, right, in the act, he he kind of made peace with what i what I meant, is that he made peace with the people that night. um And then, you know, as part of his testimony.
00:23:53
Speaker
It never went to trial. It never got to the point where we could ah interrogate his mens rea, his state of mind. um We never got to interrogate his competence to stand trial ah or his, if he had an altered mental status, we don't know any of these things because he had time. hate to see it Well, yeah, I understand. I understand. He he never actually testified.
00:24:21
Speaker
Um, because there was no jury and there was no trial, um, because he took the guilty plea. He did. He did testify. And actually I would, uh, I would like to, to use some of my, uh, remaining time. Oh, please. now Yeah. Let's do it. Go ahead. Welcome back, Nikki.
00:24:39
Speaker
So an individual certainly is vulnerable against the resources of the state. And for that reason, a defendant is entitled to due process. So due process granted him a lawyer, granted him the opportunity for a trial, granted him knowledge of the evidence against him, the the potential to confront the witnesses against him, and the opportunity to consider his options.
00:25:06
Speaker
Once again, his options were limited by the evidence of his guilt, including from the witnesses that he identified for his lawyer. The state did certainly present their case in front of the judge for the record, which is what the court is relying on now. He did not have a trial, but before the court would accept his guilty plea, the judge wanted to hear just a summary of the evidence. So that was presented. The judge also wanted to hear from HA, who confirmed that he was making this decision to plead guilty consciously.
00:25:44
Speaker
with knowledge of the potential consequences, with knowledge of his rights. The death penalty was certainly an option, but not a certainty, even with conviction. So H.A. asserted his innocence while weighing his options and potential outcomes. So basically engaged in decision making and making the best of a bad situation. And with that, I will yield to questions. Oh, go ahead, Chris, go ahead.
00:26:13
Speaker
Well, I was going to say, no no no factual questions. i just I can see both both sides right where um you know the HA was testifying, but doing it out of, I'm going to save my life based on the very smart people in the room. ah But on the other hand, you know he he was conscious of making decisions, almost like his testimony is evidence that he was um you know ah of sound mind.
00:26:42
Speaker
um but So I can, it's tough, I guess. I can see both sides. Truly a rock in a hard place that HA is in. HA was definitely in that. Yes. Yeah. Although he may have legitimately killed a man. So that's, you shouldn't do that. Also true. He did to himself. Yeah. She shouldn't do that, people. Let's not do that. Not I do. There you have it, folks. You've come to our decision. Don't kill people. Don't kill people. Uh, okay.
00:27:13
Speaker
I don't have any questions for you, Nikki. I think we should be good. Michael, do you have any questions before we get into our own deliberations? Got thoughts, but no questions. Okay. All right. Well, guys, it's time to get into the thoughts. All right. I don't have like, I don't have organized thoughts, but they are. They're there. Oh, me neither. I mean, all the time but yeah nothing's been organized on this show as far besides the sequence of events, I would say.
00:27:43
Speaker
ah All right, Nikki and I will activate clerk mode you do you need like a magical wand sound effect right there yep indicating you turning back into clerks. That's some Voltron sound effect or something. We need to make it work. Transformers. We need the Transformers. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Oh God, it hurts.
00:28:05
Speaker
all way
00:28:12
Speaker
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We're full of bones here. Okay. hopeful We're all full of bones. It's full of bones. Okay. phones aside um I'd like to start with an opening thought of my own that I have. And that thought is that we should just abolish the death penalty in this court, because I feel like if HA or other defendants were not faced with such a grisly end, if their lawyer does a terrible job of arguing for them,
00:28:46
Speaker
then they would feel open to actually pursue trial and the courts would maybe be able to do a better job of uncovering the truth. What say you associate justices? Yeah, I mean, I get it morally, right? It's a tough, it's a tough moral decision, but um there's also like, well, this guy killed someone.
00:29:12
Speaker
and then was like, oh shoot, yeah, allegedly, and by his own testimony. fair practice um And so, you know, ah he's afraid of dying, so he's going to plead guilty and then serve 30 years in prison. i And so, I don't know, you don't want to be like, oh yeah, you're right, let's take the death penalty off the table. You killed someone? Sure, you're right, that's kind of scary. Let me let me take the death penalty. You know, so I don't know if that's,
00:29:38
Speaker
the right move. I feel like it's more or less, you know, it's a deterrent to killing people. You probably like, you know, don't want to do that. So um for anybody listening, if you had any doubts, we are not imploring you to not kill others. Okay. It's not ideal. Yeah. Also not. Yeah. It's best. Seems like a lot of work.
00:30:02
Speaker
And you don't want to get yourself in that situation. So i I think I'm behind getting rid of the death penalty. But unfortunately, I don't think that's the question here. It's not. But it was just it was just my the the thought at the front of my head. Right. It is it is the inciting incident without the death penalty. I don't think we're here right now. Correct. um Mr. True. OK, I feel like my gut is telling me at this very moment that I don't think that this plea guilty, sorry, that this guilty plea. Wow. Listen to me is just automatically invalid just because he says that he's also in a innocent. Like I feel like to Nikki's point, he was legally, you know, while the death penalty is a horrible way to go, um, he was legally informed of his options. And do I feel like,
00:31:01
Speaker
Maybe it's kind of shady and could hurt people who really are innocent and are just taking a guilty plea to save their own head. Yeah. But do I think that that makes it invalid? In this case, I don't think so. He seemed seemed kind of like he did it, so I i don't know.
00:31:25
Speaker
Okay, so maybe I do have a question. So his guilt got overturned, right? On this last appeal that he did? That is correct. vi yeah and the lower point Does that mean like he's absolved ghosts free completely? Well, North Carolina appealed it to the Supreme Court, so it hinges on the decision that you guys make. Okay, so if if we say that it should be overturned, then he is like walking a free man.
00:31:54
Speaker
um Well, you can you can send the case back down to a lower case to a lower court to like Redo like the trial or whatever and and you know You can be like this is the new rule that we are implementing starting with this case. Okay
Sarah Court's Decision and Reflections
00:32:09
Speaker
lower court now Go back and and do it again. But right this time. I am wondering though if double jeopardy would attach at this point Oh, well then in that case, I guess he could appeal it back up to the ah Supreme Court ah Yeah, because my original thought was, okay, maybe it gets overturned here because he pleaded guilty under duress or coercion. But instead of going free, that means like, okay, we have a trial. But that might be the ju double jeopardy thing. Oh, so my gut, not a lawyer, turns out, but my gut tells me that the state wouldn't have the ability to try now. Yeah, I think so.
00:32:52
Speaker
Well, I mean, ability to gather evidence in that might have passed also. Yeah, we could be a period of time henceforth which witnesses are not around anymore or passed away. Yeah, I'm thinking like physical evidence.
00:33:08
Speaker
yeah or Yeah. Obviously you don't know what what the year is of this of this case. but yeah i But I can tell you that it's been ah since the alleged offense, it's been just under, so it's been about six years. Okay. So we're hearing this case six years since he the incident happened or since he got convicted? Since the since the incident happened.
00:33:37
Speaker
okay at yeah At this point, he's been in jail several years. ah So he's already serving that part of that sentence. Yeah. So many facts. There's a lot of obvious things that were like, yeah, if you kill somebody, you're you're probably not in a good spot. You know, not ideal.
00:34:00
Speaker
last episode I listened to you guys were talking about apple cider vinegar and here I am thinking it's going to be this light fun thing. Yeah. Welcome. ah Welcome to the Thunderdome. Really? We never know what we're going to get. The apple cider vinegar was a lemony break that we were all very surprised about. Clerks, bring us more cases regarding food, okay? Also, Clark, if you could bring me some apple cider. while i deliver Pour an apple cider donut. Dip it. yeah focus Focus up. That was the end of the story.
00:34:41
Speaker
Okay. Yeah, I don't know. I feel like there's a lot of obvious facts in this case. I i do concede that there is like risk in anybody taking a plea deal in that if they if they really are innocent, but they just feel like the facts are stacked against them or their lawyer sucks or whatever, um the plea deal is the best way to save their own skin.
00:35:06
Speaker
But I also don't really like the idea of just throwing this guy's case out without like a clear path to an actual legitimate trial to see if he's like if he can really prove his innocence. you know Yeah, because it it it seems like getting away with it on a technicality. Yeah, which is dumb.
00:35:26
Speaker
Yeah, that that's exactly how I'm feeling right now. It's like I don't I don't want to overturn the guilty plea because he obviously I mean his testimony and And the two witnesses as well I mean there there's a lot there and the fact that he basically went all the way to Supreme Court and and is now like, oh yeah, no, no, no, I'm totally innocent. Don't worry about it. And then he's like, well, we'll send you back to trial. Oh wait, no, we can't, we can't try you again. That's like, he got away with it somehow, legally, somehow. Wait, question, maybe it was already answered and I missed it, but did he maintain his, oh, okay, this actually might be the stupidest question I've ever asked, but he maintained his innocence throughout
00:36:12
Speaker
like all courts that this case has been through, right? Yeah. Never faltered. Never faltered. Never. So how are you able to, to that's weird to me that you can maintain your innocence yet still officially plead guilty. Well, it's like, I mean, I have, yeah I mean, we've all seen, I don't know if you have, but like ah any lawyer type TV show. Yeah. I'm not, I don't get that it happens. it It just boggles my mind that that's allowed.
00:36:42
Speaker
If I'm not mistaken, which I'm sure we might talk about this at the end. I don't want to spoil anything. Jared, please feel free to cut this out if you would like, but I'm, at this is like a thing. This is like, I'm pretty sure this case is like a big thing in, uh, what am I trying to say? Uh, it's, it's like the big backbone as to why people Like people take plea deals and also say that they're innocent all the time just to save their skin. And I think this is the case that founded that, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So people do take plea deals to get lighter sentences. That's pretty common. But then it's like, I just hate, I mean, I hate the idea of people doing that, like people who are legitimately innocent doing that because the odds are stacked against them and the state's resources are super robust compared to, you know, if you don't have any money for a lawyer or something, I don't know.
00:37:39
Speaker
If he's asserting that he's innocent and pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty, then he knows something. That if he, the risk of death is very high, the risk of getting that sentence from the judge is high, which, which kind of, yeah, it's, if he's truly innocent, then he has nothing to worry about. Well, maybe, maybe not because yeah, I don't know about that. Okay. See in a perfect world,
00:38:06
Speaker
that would be correct, right? But I feel like there's so many instances where somebody is like, they're legitimately innocent, but they don't have maybe the resources or there's like really weird circumstantial evidence that, um you know, puts them in a bad place at a bad time. And like, they're being framed or something like that. I feel like people getting wrongfully convicted all the time. Yeah, I was gonna, you know, think about once DNA became a thing, and they retried, you know, how many people that were on death row that got exonerated, plus you could get maybe a a crappy public defendant that doesn't know what they're doing. Oh, it's all bad. Just don't kill people. Don't put yourself in this situation. Yeah. Or don't be, don't be in the vicinity of somebody else being killed to where you might accidentally get blamed. Words of wisdom. Yep. That's why I am the chief justice, by the way. That's true. That wig. Yep. I'll get in mine with someday.
00:39:03
Speaker
But I think we need to try to take ourselves out of the specifics of this case, and like I guess we're trying to like okay make a general rule that would apply. right Because the whatever we come to here is going to be applied, not necessarily just to murder cases, but other cases where people complete guilty, right? Yeah. Yeah. i don't i Personally, i mean ah my my where might where I am right now is that the guilty plea is not invalid. The guy is obviously, he's saying he's innocent to avoid. to yeah He's saying he's innocent because he wants to save his ah ego i or something, but he's like, no, I'm going to plead guilty because I'm totally, totally guilty. So I don't, I don't think that guilty, please. I think I agree. Like in this case specifically, I don't think that this should be invalid.
00:39:56
Speaker
Like, I don't think we should just throw it out. And I feel like there's probably a lot of other cases out there where like, no, we shouldn't just throw it out. There has to be like, is there like some sort of caveat? Like, can we fix this system in our little fake court that we have here? Like, I don't know. We have in the past. We we need we need like we need like a porque nolos dose that we can apply to this, but not call it porque nolos dose, you know? um Like something is wrong and something needs to be fixed.
00:40:23
Speaker
in order to safeguard people who really are innocent. Like, I don't know if we just need to like beef up like our public defenders or like, I mean,
00:40:34
Speaker
I don't know. I think it goes to your original point of potentially abolishing the death penalty, right? Yeah. I think that's the, you know, um, I think that's the, that's the question. Cause that's the big one, right? Like if you're facing like 30 years in prison, yeah, that sucks. That's, that's real shitty, but like you're facing death. That's like way shittier, I feel like, at least in my opinion. yeah I mean, are we allowed to abolish the death penalty here? Is that a ruling we can make? I mean ah yeah whatever think you could. I think it's within the power of the the court, the highest court in the land to say, you know what, we've we've we're looking at it and we are overturning the state's right to have a law that allows for the, you know, the death penalty. Because I mean, like, let's say this is like some white collar crime.
00:41:27
Speaker
and not a murder at a party house. We wouldn't be here right now. No. This would be a non-issue. Yeah. This is like embezzlement. You're guilty. Yeah. To do the time. Yeah.
00:41:42
Speaker
that's That's my thing. It's like, I don't want to get this guy off scot-free because of a technicality over him potentially being coerced and then yeah not being able to retry him due to some other weird rules. I think I was just cheating for killing. And he killed a guy. So he should be brought to justice. Yeah. I agree. He seems guilty. Allegedly. He allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Based on two two witnesses potentially and you know his own testimony.
00:42:08
Speaker
ah He's sketchy. He should not be wandering the streets if he actually did kill bro, which it seems like he did. Definitely killed a bro. i mean If you're going to a party house anyways with a female companion, I feel like you're already up to no good. you know so sure Who's killing people at party houses? Party houses are like good time, high vibe places. HA is killing people allegedly killing people.
00:42:34
Speaker
Forget murder. Man is guilty of a party foul. It's true. Just a quick factual ah correction. Chris, you've said his own testimony. ah When he testified, he said, I didn't do it. And he never testified that he did do it. So but he witnessed testimony. Maybe he pled guilty. He said, I'm pleading guilty, but I didn't do it.
00:42:59
Speaker
Yeah, it's it was all the all the witnesses, the multiple witnesses who were saying he did it. So basically the lawyer was like, you you got no shot here buddy. The lawyer was like, hey bro, I cannot help you with this. Yeah, was that was the advice of counsel. um i do This is the part where but're not being a lawyer kind of it's is a legitimate problem for us because I don't exactly know how this would work. But but here's how I think this would work. If you wanted to say,
00:43:26
Speaker
No death penalty. I think what you have to do is you have to strike down the law that he was convicted under. Oh, no. I mean, he goes through that. He goes through. Oh, yeah. Murder is legal. And then every every second that has every state. um Well, actually, he wasn't convicted under first degree murder, though.
00:43:47
Speaker
It was, yeah, he pled guilty to second degree. He pled guilty to the second degree murder. So I think, I think you might, but I think you would do what you would do is you would free all the first degree murderers and you would leave this guy locked up. Well, I mean, could couldn't we, couldn't we get, couldn't we get rid of the death penalty under cruel and unusual punishment grounds? You could, but the way that you do that, and this is my understanding is you would null and void all the existing laws in the land that include the death penalty.
00:44:15
Speaker
Oh, this is why people go to school for this. I don't know if the purge commence. It's like real live. Everyone who's gotten the death penalty in the past. So are we animating them? I guess my I guess my point is the I guess you'd have to be like very maybe very specific in the ruling to say we are handing down a judgment that includes the following.
00:44:38
Speaker
any such Any law that contains language to the effect of the state has the capacity to punish you by death. The penalty of death shall be stricken. There's still a crime and all of these other penalties are still possible, but we're saying very specifically that like you can't do this particular penalty going forward. Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.
00:45:06
Speaker
If we can do that, that's actually my where I'm leaning. I don't know if that actually answers the question we're here to answer, but... Well, the fun thing is is you get to you get to answer... We bring you a question, but you get to answer whatever one you want. Yeah. Again, this is our court. This is our rule. this I mean, yeah, it's our kingdom. We're ruling it poorly, but we're trying. I feel like we already have an answer to the question.
00:45:33
Speaker
like i I feel like the answer to the question is, well, at least Chris and I are on this. Is the is his guilty plea invalid, even though he and so asserted that he's guilty, sorry, that he's innocent and he's only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty? No, I don't think it's invalid. I think he saw all the options that were against him. He saw the evidence that was stacked against him and would frankly rather rot in jail for 30 years than die.
00:46:00
Speaker
I mean, fair or risk death at a trial. Right. yeah Right. Or risk death. Correct. So i don't I don't think it's invalid. But yes, I do like the idea of protecting future innocent people that like actually innocent people who are put in this position. Yeah, I think I think i agree. We don't overturn his being guilty. But maybe we put a caveat in that. Okay, going forward, the death penalty is not a viable penalty for these offenses. I would sign off on that. Do we want to we want to lock things in? Do we want to do official? Do we feel like we're we can do official opinions? I'm i'm feeling
00:46:44
Speaker
I'm feeling pretty solid at this point. I wasn't 10 minutes ago, but here we are. Chris, where are we at? Yeah, I think, I think I agree. But but I don't think his, his guilty plea is invalid. Um, he was just trying to avoid the risk of potentially dying or getting the death penalty signed to him by the judge. So I definitely agree that his guilty plea is, uh, valid and he should be sent to jail, um, for a secondary murder. Um, yeah. I have one actual further question before we lock things in entirely. is it a but Is it possible? Like after, okay, let's say this guy, you know, takes the plea deal. He goes to jail for 30 years. Like, is that it? Is that set in stone? Or is there any way for like, there to be some sort of like retrial or for it to like, be up for a review again? Like, I don't know. Oh,
00:47:35
Speaker
out I guess that's what that those all would have been. Yeah. All right. Well, like I guess it's, is it the same appeal just up to different, does that each one of those count as a different appeal? Yeah. Like after 15 years in jail, are they able to like, is he able to like go back and be like, Hey guys, like I've been really good. Can I maybe like not rot in prison forever? I don't know. I think parole yeah role is the technical term there. Wow. Well, yeah. Can he do parole? I don't know. I have no idea. I mean, he allegedly killed a guy. So maybe not. I don't think that's a,
00:48:06
Speaker
purview of the court, necessarily. That's the... Yeah, I think we're getting outside our bounds. Excuse me for asking legal questions, you know? so I've heard about you people and your your jurisprudence. he was He was sentenced to the to the max of 30 years, so um I don't think parole... hes Yeah, that's probably not a thing for him. Is an option for him. That's fine. I was just curious. um All right. Well, on that note, I am ready to lock in our decisions if the associate justices are to. Yep. I'm always ready. Hell yeah. Cue the sound effect for us then locking in our decisions. All right. Who wants to render an official verdict? Michael, as our guest judge. ah The court finds that, let me word this correctly here,
00:49:02
Speaker
His guilty plea is not invalid. He made this choice ah using his own decision-making powers in order to avoid avoid a harsher penalty. However, going forward, the court recommends that the death penalty be taken off the table as a viable penalty in these matters to avoid potential issues of coercion. right As so ruled. Mic drop.
00:49:32
Speaker
Literally. Nice. And, uh, associate and chief of justices, uh, sign onto that opinion. Full cloth. I'm signed. Yeah. Hancocked. Yep. Anonymous on my first time here. I feel, I feel like part of the club, guys.
00:49:52
Speaker
Welcome. Do I get a wig yet? No. yeah in a bunchlo yeah
Alford Plea's Broader Implications
00:50:00
Speaker
You might get some cases of alleged apple cider vinegar though. I'll take it. i use this far you We do have roughly 95 barrels of alleged apple cider vinegar. 95. More or less. more or less yeah but Wow, okay. ah So for background, this case was argued November 17, 1969. It ended up being reargued October 14, 1970, and was decided November 23, 1970. So the final decision, it was six to three in favor of North Carolina.
00:50:43
Speaker
So in the main opinion that was written by Justice White, ah they did say that usually the conviction based on a guilty plea that's justified by the defendant admitting that they committed the crime and agreeing to a judgment without a trial, ah although this person stated he did not commit the crime, he made his plea because there was nothing to gain from a trial in light of the evidence and a lot to gain from a plea.
00:51:12
Speaker
In his case, the second degree murder conviction was better than a first degree murder trial. He had a competent lawyer. The evidence negated his claim of innocence. Also, it was demonstrated to the judge that he knew what he was doing in entering his plea. He had also been consistently satating stating that he wanted the court to find him guilty without a jury trial.
00:51:34
Speaker
And the court had previously held that a guilty plea that was motivated by avoidance of a possible death sentence is not compelled under the Fifth Amendment. So i so they were like, he knew what he was doing, he entered this plea, you know, so it's it's valid. um They drew this parallel to the plea of Nolo Contenderay.
00:51:56
Speaker
ah and in that or no contest. So basically in that instance, the defendant does not admit guilt, but they waive the right to trial and they indicate that the court can treat him as if he were guilty. So they said that this is basically the same thing, although in this specific case, this guy was asserting his innocence.
00:52:15
Speaker
ah The court has has held that the federal trial court, after no contest plea, has the power to impose a sentence afterward. ah Therefore, the Constitution allows for sentencing a defendant who is not willing to explicitly admit guilt, but all things considered would waive trial and accept the sentence.
00:52:36
Speaker
So the Constitution does not require an express admission of guilt to impose a sentence. So it doesn't make any difference constitutionally, whether he pled guilty or no contest or, you know, whatever.
00:52:50
Speaker
ah So that was their reasoning. ah The defendant can decide to plead guilty for reasons other than guilt, so they should be allowed to judge and make the decision for themselves. ah The individual can voluntarily, knowingly, and understandably consent to a sentence, even if they are unwilling or unable to admit to the crime.
00:53:12
Speaker
So the standard in deciding whether to accept a guilty plea is whether the plea is voluntary ah and an intelligent is a voluntary and intelligent choice made by the defendant. So the trial judge did not commit a constitutional error. The Court of Appeals did make an error in finding his guilty plea invalid.
00:53:33
Speaker
Well, there you have it. Isn't this called literally the Alfred plea? It is. Yes. There it is. Oh, guys, I knew I was kind of a lawyer. yeah Or definitely some kind of lawyer.
00:53:52
Speaker
Something in my bones. I guess that's why you're the Chief Justice. Exactly. Thank you, guys. Yes. This is the so-called Alford plea. It's based off of this case. ah That was the 6-3 decision. The dissent, ah written by judge Justice Brennan, basically said, well, the court needs to consider the influence of threat and like the denial of guilt on the volatariness of the plea. And to them, basically, HA was so afraid of the death penalty that he basically made the plea under duress, according to the dissent. But yikes.
00:54:25
Speaker
I mean, fair, like I would be afraid of the death penalty. I don't want that. Yeah. I mean, if you got a really rough or harsh judge, then, you know, they they could sentence you because it's not guaranteed that you get the death penalty. Right. It's up to the judge sentencing. um But it does leave it on the table. Put it on the table. So kind of sounds like the three of us are pretty much in line with the Supreme Court on this one. Yeah. Yeah.
00:54:53
Speaker
Oh, we're basically the law of the land at this point. I like this is power. I like this. Let it get to your head. Let it consume you. And while you guys are feeling good, um I'm gonna drop some other information. This is sort of the, they're yeah, no. So, ah according to, so I just ran through the the written opinion. ah What is also available is ah the the oral arguments, at least the first, not the rearguments, but the the oral, the first one, the first time it was argued.
00:55:27
Speaker
ah There's, like, transcripts and recordings. And according to the transcript, one of the aggravating factors ah identified by H.A.'s lawyer as likely to lead to the death penalty was the fact that H.A., who was black, was out with a white woman just before the murder. Oh. Duh. Well, you didn't tell us that to start. I'm kidding.
00:55:57
Speaker
what What year was this? Uh, so this was decided in 1970 and, uh, the actual murders were mid sixties, 1963. Oh, even earlier. 1963. Yeah. So how can we trust the testimony of the witnesses? Exactly. Unfortunately they knew, like they knew him like a neighbor, like, yeah. So he, like he really was like, probably like a really sketchy guy.
00:56:25
Speaker
We did have a rap sheet that was supposedly extensive. Which would be, that would be like the, yeah. But, you know, at a trial, is that, you know, is it propitive or is it prejudicial? Well, for sentencing, your history can be taken into account. Sure, for your sentencing, but not for your adjudication of guilt. Yeah. Adjudication, great word. I don't think we've used that one yet. Fantastic.
00:56:54
Speaker
i've um I've learned a thing or two from my reading. yeah um yeah the at those The witnesses, I'm trying to, I'm just looking, scrolling through and and seeing, but I know there was a neighbor, ah there were a bunch of people who um who knew him and at least one or two is was trying to be like, hey, don't don't kill that person. And he was like, I'm going to kill him.
00:57:20
Speaker
So, uh, and then at in the end, he, I just want to say he was, he was with a white woman, but he shot another black man. Yes. Interesting. Shouldn't be shooting anybody. I know. it' true it's just like you know what Why does that matter? Jared? This is why Nikki wins.
00:57:42
Speaker
and you
00:57:46
Speaker
So, ah yeah, he served 22 years of his 30-year sentence, and then he died in prison in 1975 at age 57. Wait, when did he go to prison? Let's see, so the murder was 1963. It was 35. I don't know when he was— Well, I'm just thinking, like, that's probably about as long as it would have taken for them to actually, like,
00:58:16
Speaker
bring down the death penalty like on him. Yeah. So 10 years. Yeah. 10 years of getting on death row and appealing. Poor guy. All that working for what? I mean, I guess he didn't know he was going to die in 10 years. That's fair. That's fair. So I touched on it a little bit in my argument, but I didn't want to go like too far down the rabbit hole.
00:58:40
Speaker
But so what i when Nikki and I were talking about this yesterday, you know, it's no secret that Nikki does most of the the prep work and is very up on things. I think you can hear that in her arguments versus my arguments. ah So I kind of went through the research and then I did a little bit of my own last night and I was thinking about it. And my initial reaction when we were talking about it is like, I don't, I don't really have an opinion if I'm being honest with you. I was like, you know, uh,
00:59:10
Speaker
if he If he did it and he was just trying to get away you just try to avoid the death penalty, that sounds perfectly rational to me, I would do the same thing. um On the other hand, I don't really love the idea of the state potentially having a cudgel to coerce me into doing a thing. But the more I thought about it, the more I started thinking about prosecutorial ah discretion and how many people are put into positions. like In this case, it was the death penalty, and which feels really extreme, but but at the same time, every day in this country, folks are being ah put into the same position, but it's things like, oh, you have a minimum wage job that requires you to clock in and clock out. Well, I'm gonna detain you without bail.
00:59:59
Speaker
who unless you plead guilty it's and you could take an Alfred play, but guess what? Now you've got you've got the record because you didn't have the resources to fight the state. And so that so the death penalty piece of this makes it really visceral and sort of just like, and the murder piece, I think HA is a very unsympathetic character in this narrative who makes it very easy for you to be like, what? No, that guy stays in jail. Screw that guy. But,
01:00:32
Speaker
But for me, the thing that started to creep into my mind was this feeling of like, hmm, you know, the death penalty is not the only thing that the state can use as leverage to put you in a position of making the choice that they want.
01:00:50
Speaker
And there's really nothing you can do about it. And that started to kind of creep me out a little bit. Just by having a record, you are um subjugating yourself to um you know potentially not not getting a job or you know not getting a higher place in society just right just because you now have this cajoled record. And so you could you could absolutely take an Alfred play But it alters the entire trajectory of your life from that point out and the prosecutors just get another win.
01:01:24
Speaker
And and they don't have to prove anything and like they could have a really weak case But you literally cannot afford to go to trial You can't miss work. You can't you have child care issues or whatever, right? And so tried to touch on that a little bit with the whole like this creates a have the first have not situation without going too far into prosecutorial discretion, but um that That was my takeaway from this, which is like, HA, totally unsympathetic character. I'm cool with this guy getting locked up because this the the deck seems stacked against him from an evidentiary so perspective. But then taking it to the next level or or taking it back a step and saying like,
01:02:08
Speaker
o But I don't know, ah' i could I can imagine a lot of situations where people are essentially saying like, fine, give me a record, take your win. But like, if I lose my job, like I go hungry, I'm out on the street, I lose custody. Like there are just so many things that the state can do to you.
01:02:34
Speaker
And still, the courts will say, but you had due process. And that doesn't feel accurate to me anymore. Yeah, I think pretrial incarceration is linked with you know guilty pleas, taking plea deals.
01:02:52
Speaker
um Yeah. So we we should just nuke the justice system. That's what I'm hearing. Start over. Injustice system. You're making the joke before me. Damn it. Sorry. Sorry. I just i couldn't unmute fast enough.
01:03:09
Speaker
And then I would also point out, so this is an Alfred plea specifically versus you know a regular plea deal. And so there's been a lot of kind of discussion about this by legal scholars. um So it's sort of seen like ah this hybrid plea. So the defendant can maintain innocence while taking advantage of a plea deal you know that would normally um you know require an admission of guilt.
01:03:35
Speaker
And so on the one hand, it can be seen as a benefit because you can you know get um a more lenient sentence. It eliminates this ambiguity of not knowing what the sentence is likely to be that you would get if you went to trial. um There's also discussion about how it may actually remove incentive for defendants to lie to their lawyers um and in court about their guilt and innocence and allow for their lawyers to represent them ethically.
01:04:03
Speaker
um And then a lot of discussions about this plea also mentions shame and embarrassment. So this plea saying, I'm going to take the sentence, but I'm innocent. It allows people to save face and like avoid admitting guilt in front of their families. And so there's a lot of discussion about this around um drunk driving and also sexual offending.
01:04:26
Speaker
um So it's like, I'm just gonna just go just move to the end and not have this long drawn out thing. I'm gonna just, you know, whatever. um But then on the on the other hand, ah you know there have been some downsides, and this has been explored by Brian Ward in an article he wrote in 2003.
01:04:47
Speaker
um Because there's all sorts of, I guess, hidden consequences that are really specific to the Alford plea. um so when the court When the judge is deciding on a sentence, one factor that can reduce a sentence, so make it more lenient, is if the defendant is like expressing remorse and like taking responsibility. um But if a defendant is like, I'm innocent, I didn't do shit, then that's going to come off as a lack of remorse.
01:05:20
Speaker
um You know and then if they're subject to probation or parole or being considered for like parole um you know when you're gearing up for a parole hearing to kind of get out of of prison ah there's also this expectation that you take responsibility and how is that going to read if the defendant is like i'm innocent i'm innocent.
01:05:40
Speaker
um it can cause problems if the person is engaged in like court mandated counseling or treatment that requires an Admission of an offense which comes up a lot when you're talking about treatment related to sexual offending um where ah The person is supposed to really sort of own what they've done in the harm that they've caused um and to move forward and in treatment and if they're not doing that then um that's that that's a problem. Um, so Ward in his article makes this point that the, the person who most benefits from the Alfred plea is the defense lawyer because wow then the person, you know, they're like, Oh, I'm innocent. And then it's like, sure, sure, sure. But just take your guilty and like, we're just going to move on to the next yeah fishy.
01:06:35
Speaker
Yeah. um And then Stephanos Bebas in a 2003 article also points out that, there well well, they take this abolitionist stance um and say that it's a problem because if somebody who is innocent uses this plea, then there's this perception that they're being pressured into pleading guilty.
01:06:58
Speaker
If somebody who's guilty uses this plea, then they avoid accepting responsibility for their behavior and that prevents victims and society from getting acknowledgement of the harm that was done. And so this kind of plea and the no contest plea, quote, ah permit of equivocation ambiguity where clarity is essential.
01:07:22
Speaker
So ah according to his reasoning, this might be why even though federal law allows for Alford pleas, federal prosecutors and judges may or may not even accept them. ah U.S. Department of Justice policy, I think, discourages it. ah it It can vary state to state. um So some states allow them, some states don't. um And then even you know some prosecutors' offices accept it, some don't, and some defense lawyers.
01:07:50
Speaker
you know, will accept this plea, some will absolutely not let their clients do an Alfred plea. So. Wow. This case sort of like answered the question, but I don't think it like, I don't know if it's settled the matter. I mean, maybe, yeah you know, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what the, you know, legal scholarship says, but it doesn't really seem like it's like settled the matter, but it is available. It does seem very all over the place. Yeah.
01:08:18
Speaker
Okay. If you're somebody who like takes an Alford plea and you, for like a silly crime that maybe you didn't even do and it's on your record, like does your record show anything to indicate that it was an Alford plea specifically? Maybe you can explain to a potential employer, like there there's an asterisk, like a whole record for someone who was on steroids. Yeah. Guilty of these crimes. Like.
01:08:44
Speaker
C footnote. Alfred. Yeah, I actually don't know. And then if you were the employer looking over somebody's sheet and the person like served a sentence for a crime, does it matter to you? Like you're you're. Oh, is the employer just going to be like, oh, he did time or he was, you know, sentenced to probation or whatever? You know, I don't I don't know. I don't know. We're not lawyers. Oh, yeah, no. I'll know.
01:09:15
Speaker
Some of us might be employer stone.
01:09:20
Speaker
ah course Speak for yourself. maybe I am. I employ myself occasionally. There you go. Have we thoroughly depressed you all or made you question everything you thought and believed? Yes, Jared. I was already doing that. I'm depressed.
01:09:43
Speaker
I don't think Sarah was, ah child you know, I don't think it changed anything at Sarah believes because she was like, isn't there? I said this an Alfred plea. I it creep up. I was like, I've heard of this. For those unaware, Sarah has taken several Alfred pleas in her life. yeah Nobody look at my record. Jesus. All those murders. Alleged.
01:10:10
Speaker
like Hush now. If you're my boss, no, I didn't.
Conclusion and Listener Support
01:10:19
Speaker
you know And if I'm not your boss?
01:10:24
Speaker
Probably didn't. I'm innocent. So I am curious in light of everything we just discussed, how do you feel about your, your judgment? Like just generally like my character or like I mean, we are, we are, we are starting to get a sense of it, but just a specific judgment.
01:10:51
Speaker
um I feel okay. I think we sent the right guy to jail. I don't think he was innocent. um I don't think we can solve the, you know, that the rampant problems, but we should, I mean, arguably the court's job is to ensure the state isn't suddenly, you know, taking your rights to a fair trial and things like that by coercion. But if you did something wrong, there should be some checks and balances in place in our system that's like, yeah, you know, maybe you shouldn't kill people.
01:11:24
Speaker
or else you might die, ah potentially, you know, if you're a jerk about it. um And so, I just... Can't be a jerk about it. Yeah, no, can't be a jerk about it. We're gonna kill someone, like at least don't be an asshole. Be respectful, okay?
01:11:43
Speaker
I mean, there's being a murderer and then there's being like, just a dick. Like, differently. Here's the difference. For sure. Yeah, that's that's that's where I'm at. I feel okay. I feel fine. Yeah, see I feel like I could feel better, probably. Yeah. but I recognize some of the issues, but given that I am not a judge and this is my first time doing this, I'm okay with my decision.
01:12:13
Speaker
Yeah, I'm glad that ah at least in our little imaginary court land, we abolished the death penalty. So yeah but people can't, you know, if they're faced with this situation, they they can actually consider going to trial and proving their innocence without fear of you know dying like three years later from lethal injection. I mean, we solved at least one problem. So come on, give us that. Yeah, give it. I mean, we're tired. Okay. In the real Alfred case, they didn't overturn the death penalty. That's so we're winning.
01:12:49
Speaker
It's gonna be it's gonna be very awkward in future seasons when Because y'all there are so many death penalty cases so many so many There's like a lot so your generation it where like and you use This as precedence can't you just like automatically just toing out Yeah, so yeah, so this is um This is really shortening up some of the future episodes pretty significantly. That assumes that future justices that we have on the show don't overturn your precedent. Oh, yeah. This is the Sarah Court decision, but someone else could come in and just be like, nope. Someone like might really deserve it, you know? Oh, see now. I mean, I don't. I don't be saying that.
01:13:40
Speaker
what? Bring it back. Nevermind.
01:13:45
Speaker
Tiring wearing this powdered wig. Had we said jurisprudence yet this episode? Yes, 100%. It's definitely been at least one. yeah Okay, good, good, good. You're welcome. We're good. no Nikki, i think that's I think we can close it out. I think yeah i think we're all sad.
01:14:03
Speaker
Yep. All right, good. but That means that we ah you know we we did our jobs. That's the point of it all, right? Yay, justice. To be depressed. Yay. Can the next one be about like zebras or crop law or something? I'm telling you, good cases.
01:14:27
Speaker
It is 100% possible that the next case could be about any of those things. It's actually would a good agriculture case. how Will the next case be about any of those things? You're just going to have to like and subscribe and listen. bio but yeah sponsor us All right, now that you guys have been appropriately saddened, I think that means that we have we have done our job. ah The court sort of overturned the death penalty and so short-circuited just a whole line of death penalty jurisprudence, but yeah. Go team.
01:15:12
Speaker
We've like changed, it's like a new timeline now. yeah Like all those other cases just disappear. It's a new branch. Awesome. Well, thanks to everybody. Uh, thank you to chief justice, Sarah, our associate justices, Chris and, uh, Mike, who is, uh, donning the powdered wig for the first time. And, uh, yeah, this has been re litigated. Any final words, Jared? No.
01:15:41
Speaker
Have a great rest of your day. Cue the sound effects. Or afternoon, or evening, or middle of the night, sir. Have a good time. There it is. And scene. Bye. Ciao. That was North Carolina v. Alford.
01:16:08
Speaker
In summary, the Sarah Court decided that H.A.'s guilty plea is valid. They also overturned the death penalty while they were at it. That's it for this episode, but before we go, thanks again to my co-host and to our Justices. The music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith, and provided by Pixabay. Audio mixing and producing was done by Jared.
01:16:32
Speaker
Thanks for listening. Please subscribe, rate, and comment so other people can find us. You can also catch us on YouTube and Instagram at Relitigated Podcast. Help us spread the word. Until next time, I'm Nikki, and this has been Relitigated. Bye.