Examining Alford Pleas: Comparing Alford and Traditional Guilty Plea Case Characteristics and Sentencing Outcomes

• In Event: Variation in Guilty Pleas and Suspended Sentences

Abstract

In North Carolina v. Alford (1970), the Supreme Court held that defendants who claim innocence but perceive their chances of acquittal at trial to be too risky can still plead guilty so long as there is a sufficient factual basis of guilt against the defendant. Despite the legality of Alford pleas, little is known about how they function in practice. Only one empirical study on these pleas has been published thus far (Redlich & Özdoğru, 2009), which indicates that this is an area of the justice system that warrants further investigation. This presentation aims to add to the limited research surrounding Alford pleas by comparing how these pleas differ from traditional guilty pleas in their case characteristics and sentencing outcomes. Using Virginia court records, this presentation will address two research questions: (1) Does the length of time it takes to dispose of Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? (2) Does the size of the sentence discounts given to Alford plea cases differ from the size of the discount given to traditional guilty plea cases? The presentation will conclude with discussion of the findings and the implications of these findings in practice.

Author

• Amy D. Dezember, George Mason University