Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, they do not. Before a court accepts a guilty plea, the defendant has to affirm to the judge that they are, in fact, guilty. And that they are not pleading guilty for any other reason other than that they are guilty.
Not always:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/pleading-guilty-while-saying-youre-innocent.html
Pleading Guilty While Saying You're Innocent
A defendant who claims to be innocent but doesn’t want to risk going to trial can sometimes take what has become known as an Alford plea, named after the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina v. Alford. (400 U.S. 25 (1970).)
By Michael TarletonA defendant who claims to be innocent but doesn't want to risk going to trial can sometimes take what has become known as an Alford plea, named after the Supreme Court's decision in North Carolina v. Alford. (400 U.S. 25 (1970).) Although the Supreme Court in Alford held that a plea of guilty by someone who claims to be innocent doesn't violate the Constitution, it also held that states could make their own laws regarding such pleas.
Defend your rights. We've helped 95 clients find attorneys today.
Please answer a few questions to help us match you with attorneys in your area.Do you have current criminal charges?
--Select an answer--
North Carolina v. AlfordHenry Alford was a North Carolina man accused of murder. He insisted that he was innocent of the charges, but decided to take a plea to second-degree murder rather than face the chance of being convicted at trial and receiving the death penalty. At the hearing where Alford pleaded guilty, several witnesses testified that he left his house with a gun saying he was going to go kill the victim, then returned stating that he had done so. On appeal, one of the appellate courts held that his plea was involuntary because it was coerced by threat of the death penalty. But the Supreme Court stepped in, finding not only that the threat of the death penalty didn't make the plea involuntary, but also that a defendant who claims to be innocent can plead guilty under appropriate circumstances. The plea is valid as long as there is a "factual basis" for it (such as the testimony of the witnesses at Alford's plea hearing) and it is "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent" (essentially meaning that the defendant made a rational decision to plead guilty). It's important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court held that pleas like the one in Alford are allowed under the Constitution?it didn't hold that states are required to accept such pleas.
Alford vs. "No Contest"
Alford pleas, like guilty and nolo contendere or "no contest" pleas, result in conviction. Some states allow classic Alford pleas, where defendants plead guilty while claiming to be innocent. Others require a defendant who claims innocence to plead no contest. Others still don't allow Alford pleas at all: In those states, if you assert innocence, you must plead not guilty.
And lets not forget all the minorities who were railroaded into pleas, either due to bad lawyers or corruption.
In this particular case, the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. Yes, they pled guilty. To effectively a slap on the wrist.