A plea of nolo contendre cannot be used, in subsequent civil litigation, as evidence against the defendant. If someone pleads guilty, then that admission of responsibility can be entered into evidence and it's pretty persuasive. The nolo plea is, for criminal purposes, indistinguishable from a guilty plea but for civil purposes it's completely different.
A simplified example: Hank Hothead takes a swing at Vince Victim, and breaks Vince's nose. That then requires reconstructive surgery. Now, the State prosecutes Hank for assault & battery - the crime (theoretically) hurts all members of society. Hank has a choice; he can plead guilty or he can plead nolo contendre.
After the criminal trial is over, Vince sues Hank. This isn't a double jeopardy problem - jeopardy only generally attaches when the defendant's liberty is at risk and no civil judgement can take liberty. Vince can sue Hank because Hank committed the tort of assualt, injuring Vince specifically. If Hank plead nolo in the criminal case, Vince's attorney would have to collect enough evidence to prove that Hank did, indeed, assualt Vince and that that assault caused the injuries. With a guilty plea, that evidence is all wrapped up neatly with a bow on it in the record of Hank's criminal trial. With a nolo plea, it takes more work.
Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, etc.
What's happened court-wise to any of the basketball team players who started the riot?
Thank you. I guess I knew that. The reactionary in me asked the prior question.