Also known as: nolo contendere · nolo contendere plea · no contest plea · no contest · nolo plea
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A form of plea in criminal proceedings by which the defendant neither admits nor denies the charges but submits to conviction and punishment. The court must consent after weighing the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice. The plea produces the same sentencing consequences as a guilty plea yet does not constitute an admission usable against the defendant in later civil or criminal proceedings.
Patricia Patel faces federal fraud charges and enters a nolo contendere plea with court consent. In a later civil enforcement action by regulators, the government attempts to introduce the plea as proof of her conduct. The court excludes the evidence because the nolo plea supplies no factual admission that can be used against her.
Sophie represents five protestors charged with misdemeanors and receives a package offer requiring every client to plead guilty or nolo contendere or the deal collapses. She gathers the clients in a holding cell, explains the all-or-nothing structure, and obtains signed consent forms. Preston later challenges the arrangement because the rushed group process failed to disclose how his unique immigration risks interacted with the others' decisions.
Captain Lars Jensen is indicted in New York and arrested in Puerto Rico. He files a written statement in Puerto Rico requesting to plead nolo contendere and waiving trial in New York. The New York prosecutor sends written approval, but the Puerto Rico prosecutor gives only an oral assurance. The court denies transfer because both United States attorneys must supply written consent before the case can move.
An adviser enters a nolo contendere plea to securities fraud. In a subsequent civil suit by investors, the plaintiffs offer the resulting conviction to prove the underlying misrepresentations. The court excludes the judgment because a nolo contendere plea does not qualify as a conviction usable to establish essential facts under the hearsay exception.
Brady faces a capital charge and, after consulting counsel, elects to enter a nolo contendere plea to avoid the death penalty. He later claims the plea was involuntary because of the sentencing risk. The court upholds the plea because the record shows it was knowing and voluntary when made.
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 enters plea discussions and agrees that any statements made during negotiations may be used for impeachment. After the talks fail he stands trial and the government offers his earlier statements. The court admits the statements because the defendant may waive the usual exclusionary protection for plea discussions.
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 enter a plea of not guilty, guilty, or nolo contendere with the court's consent. If the defendant refuses to plead, the court enters a not guilty plea on the defendant's behalf. The nolo contendere option requires the judge to consider the public interest before acceptance.
Evidence of the nolo contendere plea itself is inadmissible against the defendant in subsequent civil or criminal cases. A resulting conviction also cannot be offered under the hearsay exception for judgments of conviction because the rule excludes nolo pleas from that exception.
…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 of the defendant, or the absence of any prior conviction and pleas: Provided, however, that only such evidence in aggravation as the State has made known to the defendant prior to his trial…
…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 . Annual Report of the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Judicial Business of the United States Courts 278 (1992) (Table D-7). During that same period, about…
…Judgment of previous conviction.— Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere
The lawyer must obtain informed consent in a signed writing from each client after disclosing the existence and nature of all pleas involved and the participation of every person. The disclosure must explain how one client's decision affects the others under the aggregate deal.
Termination of a proceeding by a nolo contendere plea is not itself determinative that the director failed to meet the standard of conduct. Indemnification remains unavailable for liability in a derivative action unless the director satisfies the good-faith and reasonable-belief requirements and the court orders payment of expenses.