Doctoral Dissertation Research: Examining Different Kinds of Guilty Pleas

George Mason University, Fairfax VA

Investigators

Abstract

The ability of defendants to plead guilty while maintaining their innocence seems like a contradiction. However, in North Carolina v. Alford (1970) the Supreme Court held that defendants who claim innocence but want to avoid the risk of conviction at trial can still plead guilty. Based on the Alford decision, courts must find a sufficient factual basis of guilt before allowing an Alford plea to take place. However, "sufficient" has never been defined by the courts and these pleas could be accepted for a variety of reasons with differential standards applied. Despite the legality of these pleas for nearly 50 years and the controversy surrounding them, very little is known about how Alford pleas function in practice. This study will provide much-needed insight about Alford pleas, including whether the type and strength of evidence differ in Alford plea cases in comparison to traditional guilty plea cases. This research will also provide a greater understanding of whether these pleas operate as the Supreme Court intended, which in turn can inform how current plea bargaining policies and practices may be improved upon. This project will address the gap in the literature surrounding Alford pleas and accomplish two specific goals: (1) Compare Alford and traditional guilty plea cases and examine differences in processing (i.e., the length of time to dispose of the case) and outcomes (i.e., the differences between the sentences received by plea type); and (2) Examine whether the strength of evidence differs in Alford plea cases and how the strength of evidence factors into the process of offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas. This project will use a mixed methods approach that involves analyzing Virginia administrative court records and interviewing court actors to provide more information and understanding about these unique pleas and how the strength of evidence may impact the decisions made by legal actors and defendants. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) will be used to examine the relationship between the type of plea (i.e., Alford or traditional guilty plea) and the dependent variables (strength of evidence, plea discount, and length of time to dispose of case), while appropriately controlling for the county-level nature of the data. Additionally, interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys will provide better understanding of the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas and how the strength of evidence factors into the process. Findings from this study can help inform future studies, including what other states are doing to ensure that the factual basis of guilt is established in Alford plea cases, and aid in the development of evidence-based practices surrounding the role of evidence in plea bargaining and the courts' acceptance of all types of guilty pleas. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.