Also known as: nolo contendere · nolo plea · nolo contendere pleas · no contest plea · no-contest plea
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A form of plea in criminal proceedings by which the defendant submits to conviction without making an admission of factual guilt. The plea produces the same sentencing consequences as a guilty plea yet avoids creating an evidentiary admission usable against the defendant in later civil or criminal matters.
Nadia Novak faced criminal charges for environmental violations and entered a nolo contendere plea. In a later civil nuisance action brought by a neighboring landowner, the plaintiff attempted to introduce the plea to prove liability. The court excluded the evidence because the plea itself cannot be used against the defendant in subsequent proceedings.
Sophie represented five protestors charged with misdemeanors and received a package offer requiring all to plead guilty or nolo contendere or the deal would collapse. She presented the offer collectively in a holding cell and collected signed consents within thirty minutes. Preston later challenged the process because the lawyer failed to obtain separate informed written consent detailing how each client's participation affected the others.
Captain Lars Jensen was indicted in New York and arrested in Puerto Rico. He filed a written statement in Puerto Rico requesting to plead nolo contendere and waive trial in New York. The New York prosecutor supplied written approval but the Puerto Rico prosecutor gave only an oral assurance, so the court denied transfer because both United States attorneys must approve in writing.
Bobby entered a nolo contendere plea to environmental charges. In a later civil trespass suit the plaintiff offered the resulting conviction to prove essential facts. The court excluded the judgment because a conviction entered on a nolo contendere plea does not qualify for the hearsay exception that applies to convictions after trial or guilty pleas.
Brady faced a capital charge and chose to plead nolo contendere after consulting counsel. The court conducted a personal colloquy confirming the plea was voluntary and not the product of force or improper promises. The plea stood even though Brady later sought to challenge the sentence on constitutional grounds.
In 1959, petitioner Brady was charged with kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The indictment charged that the victim of the kidnapping was not liberated unharmed, so Brady faced a maximum penalty of death if the jury recommended it. Represented by competent counsel throughout, Brady first elected to plead not guilty. He made no serious attempt to reduce the possibility of a death penalty by waiving a jury trial because the trial judge was unwilling to try the case without a jury. Upon learning that his codefendant, who had confessed to the authorities, would plead guilty and be available to testify against him, Brady changed his plea to guilty. The trial judge twice questioned Brady as to the voluntariness of his plea before accepting it. Brady was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment, later reduced to thirty years. In 1967, Brady sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily given because the statute operated to coerce his plea, because his counsel exerted impermissible pressure upon him, and because his plea was induced by representations with respect to reduction of sentence and clemency. He also alleged that the trial judge had not fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a hearing, the District Court for the District of New Mexico denied relief. The District Court found that Brady's counsel did not put impermissible pressure on him to plead guilty and that no representations were made with respect to a reduced sentence or clemency. The court determined that Brady decided to plead guilty when he learned that his codefendant was going to plead guilty. The court concluded that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, determining that the District Court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and specifically approving the finding that Brady's plea of guilty was voluntary. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the claim that the Court of Appeals was in error in not reaching a contrary result on the authority of United States v. Jackson.
Mezzanatto agreed during plea discussions to allow the government to use his statements for impeachment if he later testified inconsistently at trial. The prosecutor introduced the statements after Mezzanatto took the stand. The court upheld the waiver because the evidentiary protections surrounding nolo contendere discussions remain subject to knowing relinquishment by the defendant.
On August 1, 1991, San Diego Narcotics Task Force agents arrested Gordon Shuster after discovering a methamphetamine laboratory at his residence in Rainbow, California. Shuster agreed to cooperate with the agents. He placed a call to respondent Gordon Mezzanatto's pager a few hours later. When Mezzanatto returned the call, Shuster told him that a friend wanted to purchase a pound of methamphetamine for $13,000. Shuster arranged to meet Mezzanatto later that day. At the meeting, Shuster introduced an undercover officer as his friend. Mezzanatto produced a brown paper package containing approximately one pound of methamphetamine from his car. He also presented a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue and asked the officer if he wanted to take a hit. The officer gave a prearranged arrest signal after leaving the car to retrieve the money. Mezzanatto was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On October 17, 1991, Mezzanatto and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss cooperating with the Government. At the beginning of the meeting, the prosecutor stated that Mezzanatto would have to agree that any statements made could be used to impeach contradictory testimony at trial if the case proceeded that far. Mezzanatto conferred with counsel and agreed to proceed under those terms. He then admitted knowing the package contained methamphetamine while claiming he had dealt only in ounce quantities and had not visited Shuster's residence for at least a week. The Government confronted Mezzanatto with surveillance evidence showing his car on Shuster's property the day before the arrest. It terminated the meeting for failure to provide completely truthful information. Mezzanatto was later tried on the charge. He took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he thought Shuster used the laboratory to manufacture plastic explosives for the CIA and that he did not know the package contained methamphetamine. Over defense objection, the prosecutor cross-examined Mezzanatto about inconsistent statements from the October 17 meeting. The prosecutor called an attending agent to recount those statements. The jury found Mezzanatto guilty. The District Court sentenced him to 170 months in prison. A Ninth Circuit panel reversed over Chief Judge Wallace's dissent in 998 F. 2d 1452 (1993). The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the decision conflicted with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in United States v. Dortch, 5 F. 3d 1056 (1993).
A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or nolo contendere with the court's consent. The court must consider the parties' views and the public interest before accepting a nolo contendere plea.
A nolo contendere plea results in conviction and sentencing but does not constitute an admission of factual guilt that can be introduced against the defendant in later civil or criminal proceedings.
…the Texas Constitution. Tex. Const., Art. 1, § 3a. Those contentions were rejected. The petitioners, having entered a plea of nolo contendere , were each fined $200 and assessed court costs of $141.25. App. to Pet. for Cert. 107a-110a. The Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District considered the petitioners' federal…
…and aggravation of punishment, including the record of any prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty or pleas of nolo contendere
…pleaded guilty, Rule 11 read as follows: “A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere . The court may refuse to accept a plea
…see Pet. for Cert. 10-11), approximately 92.2% of the convictions in the Ninth Circuit were secured through pleas of guilty or nolo contendere
…of previous conviction.— Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 410 bars admission of a nolo contendere plea against the defendant who entered it in any later civil or criminal proceeding.
Yes. A voluntary nolo contendere plea generally waives challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment, including lack of specificity, because the plea is a formal response to the charging document.
A lawyer representing multiple clients may participate only if each client gives informed consent in a signed writing that discloses the existence and nature of all pleas and each person's participation.
No. Rule 803(22) expressly excludes judgments entered after a nolo contendere plea from the exception that otherwise applies to convictions after trial or guilty pleas.