Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So at the pleading stage, everyone is entitled to plead not guilty because nothing has been proven in court yet. The defendant doesn't have to do the prosecutor's job for him.
2007-07-04 08:24:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by noble_savage 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Almost unheard of. Directed verdict is the only way. The "trial" is abbreviated in the case of a guilty plea, and the right to jury proceedings effectively waived. This rarely comes into play, and generally only when the police and prosecutor have broken many, many rules and laws, and the defendant is so obviously "not guilty" the court has no option. The directed verdict in this instance would involve the judge simply not accepting the plea. More commonly, in some of the fraudulent cases I witnessed in Arizona, where the entire prosecution case was fake, the judge asks both attorneys to approve a dismissal, effectively meaning there IS no trial. I do not believe this to be the case in a jury trial, since a guilty plea would normally foreshorten that process to the preclusion of jury selection, at arraignment. I have seen only ONE "directed verdict", and it set in motion a chain of events in which several police officers were prosecuted and the prosecuting attorney disbarred and may soon be imprisoned for fraud and extortion. So this is a MAJOR event in the system. "Nolo Contendre" or "no contest" is, in fact, a guilty plea, although some criminals, most notably one of the very worst Spiro Agnew, who pulled that scam when charged with felony tax evasion and bribery, etc., etc., while in office, have decided to obscure that fact later. It basically means the charges are not worthy of a defense.
2016-05-18 00:16:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He's pleading not guilty, not that he is innocent. He is saying that there is not enough evidence to convict him. If however he testifies during his trial and lies under oath, he can be tried for perjury.
2007-07-04 05:18:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You don't plead under oath. Besides, people who plead guilty usually get off easier through plea bargaining so I guess you could say there is a hidden punishment for those who lie about whether or not they did it.
2007-07-04 05:19:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Memnoch 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Would you really expect someone who broke the law to suddenly have feelings of regret or remorse? Not going to happen. Yes it is frustrating sometimes especially when there's video evidence showing the "accused" committing the crime.
2007-07-04 05:32:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by D squared 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
because he says hes innocent , just because a court finds him guilty doesn't mean he lied and he is innocent until proved guilty so that isn't a lie
2007-07-04 05:19:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by jojo 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fifth Amendment of the Consitution means you cannot be required to testify, with the assumption that you are going to lie to protect yourself.
2007-07-04 05:18:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Now you know why the plea is not made under oath.
2007-07-04 05:17:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gray Wanderer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋