On September 5, 2024, Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges. Biden’s lawyers surprised the Justice Department lawyers and others with the decision to change his plea. When Biden’s lawyers announced the intent to plead guilty, the defense wanted to enter an Alford Plea. What is an Alford Plea?
While a case involving tax crimes committed by the son of a President is bound to be of great public interest, we are not going to concern ourselves with Mr. Biden’s legal problems. Instead, we are going to take a look at what an Alford Plea is and where it came from. The idea of this sort of plea came from a 1963 murder case in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
The Murder Case
The bare facts of the murder case were summarized in the arguments before the U. S. Supreme Court.
On the evening of November 22, 1963, Nathaniel Young, a Negro gentleman who operated a house that could best be described as a”party house” in the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, opened — responded to a knock at the door, opened the door slightly and was cut down by a shotgun blast.
North Carolina v. Alford Supreme Court Transcript, 2
Earlier that day, Henry C. Alford, identified as a Negro in the transcript, had visited the house with a white girlfriend. Henry and his companion illegally purchased alcohol at this house, and Alford gave Young “his last dollar” to rent a room. After a short time, Alford and his companion left the house, as Alford was out of money.
The transcript continues
He demanded that this young lady leave with him. Nathaniel Young, the proprietor of this house, said, “She can stay here if she wishes.” An argument ensued and Henry Alford ran off with the young lady’s coat, being chased by Nathaniel Young and someone else.
Approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, there was a knock at the door and Nathaniel Young was cut down by a shotgun blast.
North Carolina v. Alford Supreme Court Transcript, 3
The Plea
In December 1963, Henry Alford was indicted for first-degree murder. He, however, professed his innocence. His defense attorney interviewed all the witnesses who could be found that the defendant said would support his claim of innocence. The witnesses, however, did the opposite and tended to implicate him in the crime. In particular, they testified that Alford had retrieved his gun shortly before the murder. They said that he had threatened to kill Young before the murder, and further had said that he did it after the murder. In addition to this testimony implicating the defendant in this crime, Alford had a sizable criminal history, including a previous murder conviction.
Not surprisingly, the defense attorney thought that his client would surely be found guilty. He recommended entering a guilty plea to second degree murder. Alford followed the advice of his attorney and entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge. He continued to assert his innocence, however, and testified that he was entering a guilty plea solely to avoid the death penalty.
After giving his version of the events of the night of the murder, Alford stated:
“I pleaded guilty on second degree murder because they said there is too much evidence, but I ain’t shot no man, but I take the fault for the other man. We never had an argument in our life and I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn’t they would gas me for it, and that is all.”
In response to questions from his attorney, Alford affirmed that he had consulted several times with his attorney and with members of his family and had been informed of his rights if he chose to plead not guilty. Alford then reaffirmed his decision to plead guilty to second-degree murder:
“Q [by Alford’s attorney]. And you authorized me to tender a plea of guilty to second degree murder before the court?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And in doing that, that you have again affirmed your decision on that point?
“A. Well, I’m still pleading that you all got me to plead guilty. I plead the other way, circumstantial evidence; that the jury will prosecute me on-on the second. You told me to plead guilty, right. I don’t-I’m not guilty but I plead guilty.
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (1970), 28, n. 2
An Alford Plea
From this case, a guilty plea combined with an assertion of factual innocence became known as an Alford Plea. It is at once paradoxical to plead guilty to a crime that you simultaneously claim you did not commit. Often, a court will require the defendant to admit the elements of a crime as a condition of accepting a guilty plea. In Alford’s murder case, the court took testimony from some witnesses to see if there was indeed a strong case against him. Ultimately, the trial court accepted the guilty plea without an admission of guilt, and with continued claims of innocence.
Most, but not all, American jurisdictions allow such a plea to be entered today. There is a nagging question, though, about whether or not such a plea should be accepted. Is it just to accept a guilty plea from someone who continues to assert innocence? Should punishment be imposed in such a case, where no trial verdict has been entered?
The Appeal
Attempts to reopen the case in state courts failed. Defense attorneys argued that the plea was the result of fear and coercion and therefor not voluntary. The coercion alleged was the high likelihood of receiving the death penalty if convicted at trial for first-degree murder. Initial attempts to appeal into the federal courts also failed. In 1967, however, without an evidentiary hearing, a Federal District Court denied any relief to Alford. This was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in which a divided panel found that the plea was involuntary. North Carolina then appealed the Circuit Court ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court.
The Court observed that
Ordinarily, a judgment of conviction resting on a plea of guilty is justified by the defendant’s admission that he committed the crime charged against him and his consent that judgment be entered without a trial of any kind. The plea usually subsumes both elements, and justifiably so, even though there is no separate, express admission by the defendant that he committed the particular acts claimed to ‘constitute the crime charged in the indictment. Here Alford entered his plea but accompanied it with the statement that he had not shot the victim.
If Alford’s statements were’ to be credited as sincere assertions of his innocence, there obviously existed a factual and legal dispute between him and the State. Without more, it might be argued that the conviction entered on his guilty plea was invalid, since his assertion of innocence negatived any admission of guilt, which, as we observed last Term in Brady, is normally “[c]entral to the plea and the foundation for entering judgment against the defendant . . .” (Citations omitted)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (1970), 32
So, the issue boiled down to whether the proclamation of innocence really invalidates the guilty plea. The Court observes, however, that in this case, there was also significant evidence of guilt considered by the original trial court. Ultimately,
Although denying the charge against him, he nevertheless preferred the dispute between him and the State to be settled by the judge in the context of a guilty plea proceeding rather than by a formal trial.
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (1970), 32
Comparison to Nolo Contendere Plea
Should a trial court be able to accept such a plea? The Court considered what is called a nolo contendere (or, no contest) plea. In a no contest plea, a defendant simply states that he will not contest the charges against him. After a no contest plea, a case may be handled and punishment assessed with neither a trial, nor an admission of guilt. Given that, courts clearly already punished defendants without trial or an admission of guilt.
Implicit in the nolo contendere cases is a recognition that the Constitution does not bar imposition of a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 (1970), 36
The Court concluded that Alford’s plea was valid and that there is nothing unconstitutional about accepting a guilty plea when the defendant still maintains his innocence. It may be rational for a defendant to behave this way. In Alford’s case, by pleading guilty to second-degree murder, the defendant avoided the death penalty likely to be imposed if there had been a first-degree murder conviction at trial.
Three justices dissented from the Court’s ruling. They did so based on their belief that the death penalty was unconstitutional and therefore, the threat of execution was unconstitutional coercion of the guilty plea. The dissenting opinion is very short, and it is unclear how these justices may have ruled in the Alford case if the death penalty were not on the table.