what's the difference between no contest and guilty plea's? Can you argue your side or a case when you plead no contest? And then the judge makes a decision?
2007-10-21 13:02:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
When you plead no contest, there is nothing to argue (argue = contest). the judge makes a decision then on your sentencing, according to local guidelines and your prior criminal history if any. Often a no contest plea can get a low-end felony dropped to a misdemeanor, depending on the cicumstances.
Best wishes.
2007-10-21 13:07:44 · answer #1 · answered by Shell Answer Man 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There really is not much difference between a no contest plea and a guilty plea. Once you do either, the judge finds you guilty and sentences you. You do not argue your side of the case after you enter a plea.
In a guilty plea, you admit you committed the crime you are charge with. In a no contest plea, you do not admit guilt but admit that you believe if the case went to trial you could be found guilty. You are allowing the judge to find you guilty and sentence you.
If you plead guilty or no contest in a criminal case, it can also have an effect of how that plea can be used against you in a civil lawsuit that if filed involving the same facts or circumstances. In general, the guilty plea can be used against the defendant in the related civil trial, but a no contest plea cannot.
2007-10-21 13:09:55 · answer #2 · answered by . 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, pleading Guilty means you admit to doing the crime. Pleading No Contest means that you do not admit it, but do not wish to challenge the charges against you. ALSO, a Guilty plea (if not withdrawn) is able to be used against you in later trials. A No Contest plea cannot be used against you in subsequent trials.
2007-10-21 13:06:26 · answer #3 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you plead "no contest", you may as well be pleading guilty. Plead innocent and then plead your case and go before a jury. All members of the jury have to believe you are guilty.
2007-10-25 13:08:40 · answer #4 · answered by rick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, eveyone who answered is correct. There's no practical difference between them. Another type of plea with the same practical effect is the "Alford" plea, in which you basically state that you're "not guilty," but recognize that they have so much evidence against you that you will likely be convicted anyway.
2007-10-21 13:30:58 · answer #5 · answered by Jimmy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i ought to understand asking the form between No Contest and responsible, yet No Contest and not responsible are not even comparable. No Contest potential which you're no longer saying you probably did it, yet you assert that the info might get you convicted in certainty. no longer responsible is saying which you do no longer even think of they'll discover you responsible and you probably did no longer do it.
2016-10-13 11:19:18 · answer #6 · answered by goldthorpe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nolo contendre, or no contest, means only that you do not choose to defend yourself. It is equivalent to a plea of guilty.
No, you can not present a case because that plea means you won't.
2007-10-21 13:06:56 · answer #7 · answered by Tom K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋