Editing Plea

{{Short description|Answer to a claim made by someone in a common law criminal case}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Distinguish|Pleading}}
{{Globalize|date=August 2024}}

In [[law]], a '''plea''' is a [[defendant]]'s response to a [[criminal charge]].<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Garner |editor-first=Bryan A. |date=2019 |title=Black's law dictionary |edition=11th |publisher=West Group |location=St. Paul, Minn. }}</ref> A defendant may plead [[guilt (law)|guilty]] or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including ''[[nolo contendere]]'' (no contest), [[no case to answer]] (in the [[United Kingdom]]), or an [[Alford plea]] (in the [[United States]]).

Under common law systems, a defendant who pleads guilty will be [[Conviction|convicted]] if the court accepts the plea. The court will then determine and impose a [[sentence (law)|sentence]]. [[Plea bargain]]ing involves discussions between the prosecutor and defendants to reach an agreement for a guilty plea in exchange for a more lenient punishment. 

In civil law jurisdictions, a confession by the defendant is treated like any other piece of evidence. A full confession does not prevent a full trial or relieve the prosecutor from presenting a case to the court.

==Types of plea==
The most common types of plea are "'''guilty'''" and "'''not guilty'''".

In some legal systems pleading guilty can result in a more lenient punishment for the defendant; it is thus a type of [[mitigating factor]] in sentencing.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/| title = Sentencing Council}}</ref> While in some other legal systems pleading guilty instead can result in a harsher punishment. In a [[plea bargain]], a defendant makes a deal with the prosecution or court to plead guilty in exchange for a more lenient punishment, or for related charges against them to be dropped. A "'''blind plea'''" is a guilty plea entered with no plea agreement in place.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Ethics of Cause Lawyering: An Empirical Examination of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Cause Lawyers |first=Margareth |last=Etienne |journal=The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=95 |issue=4 |date=Summer 2005 |pages=1195–1260 |jstor=3491403 |url=http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7208&context=jclc}}</ref> Plea bargains are particularly common in the United States.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Plea Bargaining and Its History |first=Albert W. |last=Alschuler |journal=[[Columbia Law Review|Colum. L. Rev.]] |year=1979 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=1–43 |doi=10.2307/1122051 |jstor=1122051|url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/1006 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Other countries use a more limited form of plea bargaining. In the United Kingdom and Germany, guidelines state that only the timing of the guilty plea can affect the reduction in the punishment, with an earlier plea resulting in a greater reduction.

In the United States, a ''[[nolo contendere]]'' ('''no contest''') plea is when the defendant submits a plea that neither admits nor denies the offense. It has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea because the trial avoids determining the defendant's guilt.

===Peremptory pleas===
{{Main|Peremptory plea}}

These pleas claim that a case cannot proceed for some reason. They are so-called because, rather than being an answer to the question of guilt or innocence, they are a claim that the matter of guilt or innocence should not be considered.

They are:
*'''''autrefois convict''''' (or '''''autrefois''''' '''''acquit''''') – where under the doctrine of [[double jeopardy]], the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the same charge and hence cannot be tried again.
*plea of pardon – where the accused has been [[Pardon|pardoned]] for the offense.

==Standing mute==

===Common law===
{{see also|peine forte et dure}}
When a defendant refuses to plead to an [[indictment]] it is called "standing mute", and it has been left to juries to decide the reason for the muteness, whether maliciousness or mental impairment.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191758256.001.0001/acref-9780191758256-e-2902 | isbn=978-0-19-175825-6 | title=A Dictionary of Law Enforcement | chapter=Standing mute | date=22 January 2015 | publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref> Historically, during an arraignment an accused person would enter a plea, guilty or not, and after pleading not guilty would be asked how he was to be tried, being expected to answer "By God and my country". There were various penalties for refusing to do this if one was of sound mind. In cases of [[piracy]] or [[felony]] the accused was tortured by [[Pressing (execution)|pressing]] until he entered a plea; [[Edward Coke]] reported details of such during a murder trial in the reign of [[James VI and I|James I]]. In 1692 [[Giles Corey]], charged with Witchcraft in [[New England]], was pressed until he died for refusing to answer "By God and my country" after pleading not guilty to  the charges.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Morgan |first1=E. M. |title=The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination |journal=Minnesota Law Review |date=1949 |url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1174}}</ref> Obtaining pleas by torture was abolished by statute<ref>[[The Felony and Piracy Act 1722]] 12 Geo. 3. c. 20</ref> in 1772.

===US criminal procedure===
A defendant who refuses to enter a plea is usually interpreted as giving a plea of not guilty; the [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]], for instance, state, "If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty."<ref name=cornell11>{{cite web|publisher=[[Cornell Law School]]|title=Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 11. Pleas|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11}}</ref> Similarly, if a defendant attempts to enter an unorthodox plea (a "creative plea"), this will usually be interpreted as a plea of not guilty.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nlg-la.org/index_files/cd_questions.pdf|title=Questions and Answers about Civil Disobedience and the Legal Process|author=National Lawyers Guild, LA Chapter|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727003254/http://www.nlg-la.org/index_files/cd_questions.pdf|archive-date=2011-07-27}}</ref> One example of this was a defendant accused of a crime committed while protesting a [[nuclear power]] plant, who gave his plea as "I plead for the beauty that surrounds us".<ref>{{citation|author=Hurst, John|title=A-plant protestors being freed|work=Los Angeles Times|date=August 10, 1978}}</ref>

==United States==

==="Voluntary and intelligent"===
A [[defendant]] who enters a plea of guilty must do so, in the phraseology of a 1938 [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case, ''[[Johnson v. Zerbst]]'',<!--need cite--> "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently". The burden is on the prosecution to prove that all waivers of the defendant's rights complied with due process standards. Accordingly, in cases of all but the most minor offenses, the court or the prosecution (depending upon local custom and the presiding judge's preference) will engage in a [[plea colloquy]] wherein they ask the defendant a series of rote questions about the defendant's knowledge of his rights and the voluntariness of the plea. Typically the hearing on the guilty plea is transcribed by a [[court reporter]], and the transcript is made a part of the permanent record of the case to preserve the conviction's validity from being challenged at some future time. "Intelligent" has been described as "an elusive term, meaning that the defendant knows his rights, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and the consequences of his plea."<ref>{{citation|volume=70|publisher=Judicature|pages=203|date=1986–1987|title=Judicial Supervision of the Guilty Plea Process: A Study of Six Jurisdictions|author=McDonald, William F.}}</ref> "Voluntary" has been described as also "an elusive term which has come to mean not induced by 'improper' inducements, such as [[bribing]] or physical violence, but not including the inducements normally associated with [[charge bargaining|charge]] and [[sentence bargaining]] (except for inducements involving '[[overcharging (law)|overcharging]]' by prosecutors)."<ref>{{citation|volume=70|publisher=Judicature|pages=203|date=1986–1987|title=Judicial Supervision of the Guilty Plea Process: A Study of Six Jurisdictions|author=McDonald, William F.}}</ref> Empirical research has demonstrated that violent conditions in jails during pretrial detention of people who are legally innocent do improperly induce or coerce guilty pleas,<ref>{{citation|journal=Journal of Criminal Justice|volume=82|issue=4|date=2022|title=How do the consequences of pretrial detention on guilty pleas and carceral sentences vary between misdemeanor and felony cases?|author=Thomas, C.|author2=Cadoff, B.|author3=Wolff, K. T.|author4=Chauhan, P.|page=102008 |doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.102008 |s2cid=253991546 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365754233}}</ref> but this has not constitutionally invalidated the pleas under current Supreme Court precedent.

Virtually all jurisdictions hold that defense counsel need not discuss with defendants the collateral consequences of pleading guilty, such as [[consecutive sentencing]] or even treatment as an aggravating circumstance in an ongoing capital prosecution.<ref>{{citation|volume=87|publisher=Cornell L. Rev.|pages=697|date=2001–2002|title=Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas|author1=Chin, Gabriel J. |author2=Holmes, Richard W. Jr. |journal=Cornell Law Review |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clqv87&div=33}}</ref> However, the Supreme Court recognized an important exception in ''[[Padilla v. Kentucky]]'' (2010), in which the Court held that defense counsel is obligated to inform defendants of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Thus a defendant who is not advised of immigration consequences may have an [[ineffective assistance of counsel]] argument.

In the U.S. federal system, the court must also satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the guilty plea.<ref name=cornell11/> However, this safeguard may not be very effective because the parties, having reached a plea agreement, may be reluctant to reveal any information that could disturb the agreement. When a plea agreement has been made, the judge's factual basis inquiry is usually perfunctory, and the standard for finding that the plea is factually based is very low.<ref>{{citation|title=Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View|author=Turner, Jenia Iontcheva|publisher=The American Journal of Comparative Law|volume=54|number=1|date=Winter 2006|pages=199–267}}</ref>

===Special pleas===
Other special pleas used in criminal cases include the plea of mental incompetence, challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant's person, the plea in bar, attacking the jurisdiction of the court over the crime charged, and the plea in abatement, which is used to address procedural errors in bringing the charges against the defendant, not apparent on the "face" of the indictment or other charging instrument. Special pleas in federal criminal cases have been abolished, and defenses formerly raised by special pleas are now raised by motion to dismiss.

A conditional plea is one where the defendant pleads guilty to the offense but expressly reserves the right to appeal certain aspects of the charges (for example, that the evidence was illegally obtained).

In ''[[United States v. Binion]]'', malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be [[obstruction of justice]] and led to an enhanced sentence. Although the defendant had pleaded guilty, he was not awarded a reduction in sentence because the feigned illness was considered to mean that he was not [[acceptance of responsibility|accepting responsibility]] for his illegal behavior.<ref>{{cite journal
|url=http://jaapl.org/content/34/1/126.full
|title=Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing
|journal=Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
|date=January 2006
|volume=34
|issue=1
|pages=126–128
|publisher=Journal of the American Psychiatric Association
|access-date=2007-10-10
|last1=Darani
|first1=Shaheen
}}
</ref>

== United Kingdom ==

=== "Unambiguous plea" ===
A defendant who enters a plea of guilty must do so unequivocally. A guilty plea which is "imperfect, unfinished or otherwise ambiguous"<ref>R v Ingleson [1915] 1 KB 512</ref> will not legitimate and should the court proceed to sentence on such a plea, there exist grounds for ordering a retrial or quashing the conviction.

In ''R v Atkinson'',<ref>R v Atkinson [2021] EWCA Crim 153</ref> the Court of Appeal held that, where a defendant entered a plea of 'Guilty, but I intended to defend myself' this could be held to be an unequivocal plea where the judge had clarified any ambiguity before accepting the plea.

=== Special pleas ===
Three special pleas (though not in the strictest sense of the word) exist in the criminal courts of England and Wales:

Demurrer: Which is an "objection to the form or substance of the indictment".<ref>R v Inner London Quarter Sessions Ex p/ Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1970] 2 QB 80</ref> It is essentially no different than a motion to quash the indictment, however, it continues to exist in law. Unlike standard pleas, this must be entered in writing in advance of the [[arraignment]].

Plea to jurisdiction:<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1348477920 |title=BLACKSTONE'S CRIMINAL PRACTICE 2023. |date=2023 |publisher=OXFORD UNIV PRESS US |isbn=978-0-19-287029-2 |location=[S.l.] |pages=D12.52 |oclc=1348477920}}</ref> Can be entered where the defendant believes the [[Crown Court]] does not have the power to hear the case before it, such a plea is usually entered where the offence being charged is [[Summary offence|summary only]]. Similarly to Demurrer, this plea must be entered in writing in advance.

Pardon:  "It may be relied on where a pardon has been granted by the Crown on the advice of the [[Home Secretary]] in exercise of the [[royal prerogative]] of [[Royal prerogative of mercy|mercy]]. It must be pleaded at the first opportunity (i.e. before arraignment if the pardon has by then been granted). In modern times, the plea has become obsolete."<ref name=":0" />

==Plea in mitigation==
{{Main|Mitigating factor}}

A plea in mitigation is used during criminal law proceedings in many [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth countries]]. It typically involves a lawyer telling a judge of extenuating circumstances that could result in a lesser sentence for an offender.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-overview |title=Sentencing - Overview |author=<!--Not stated--> |website=The Crown Prosecution Service |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=23 March 2019}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Wiktionary|plea|plead|pleaded|pled|guilty|not guilty}}
*[[Pleading]]
{{-}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Criminal procedure (investigation)}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Pleas]]