the face of contrition?
Posted on 11/02/2001 11:54:50 AM PST by maxwell
Edited on 04/29/2004 1:59:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The judge in the trial of alleged former Symbionese Liberation Army member Sara Jane Olson on Thursday orde red a hearing for next week after the defendant spoke to the media about her plea deal Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
One of OJ's lawyers.
In light of what she said after walking out of court, we can only assume she was lying to the judge, or lying to the press to save face.
Is spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons telling us that Olson should have made sure she was President of the United States before she decided to spin the press over the court decision? ;-)
the face of contrition?
That is an admission that there is enough evidence that if presented to the jury would lead to a conviction.
It takes its name from the Supreme Court case, North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25 (1970).
I get the impression from watching the show that the judge is ethically obligated to reject the guilty plea if he is not conviced that the person is really guilty.
If the person walks out of the court and says that they are innocent it seems incumbent on the judge to reject the plea.
I hope the judge drags her back into court and makes her either change her plea or give a detailed description of the crimes to which she is pleading guilty; make her either spell it out or go to trial.
Who are the Symbionese and why did Sara Jane Olson care about them?
Another thing that always bothered me about the SLA is what did the US do to the Symbionnese to deserve terrorist attacks?
You are right.
Though a judge cannot determine if someone is "guilty in fact", he must determine that the guilty plea is knowingly and voluntarily given and can ask a defendant who is pleading guilty to describe their crime. This process is called "allocution."
But sometimes the defendant does not want to admit guilt and that is when the "Alford plea" is used. The defendant does not say whether she is "in fact" guilty or inncoent but just that there is enough evidence for a jury to find her guilty were there to have been a trial, but in effect waives a trial.
I was initially sypathetic to this woman. She seemed to have left her past behind and made partial amends by being a good mother and giving back to her community. But her behavior since her arrest convinced me that she's a self-righteous liar and hasn't changed at all. Throw the book at her.
Is this used very often? Why would anyone plead guilty if they could just use the Alford plea? It seems like the result is the same but it might leave your options open. Is there a catch?
Is this used very often? Why would anyone plead guilty if they could just use the Alford plea? It seems like the result is the same but it might leave your options open. Is there a catch?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.