Pleading No Contest

/in , /by

What It Means

If you haven’t experienced the situation of pleading no contest, you’re still probably familiar with the term. Within the ubiquitous amount of police procedure and crime-centered programs on TV and in the movies, the phrase is a main ingredient. To enter a plea of no contest is to admit to no guilt for a particular crime. However, it’s not that simple.

The Full Impact

Alternatively referred to as an Alford plea or nolo contendere, a no-contest plea may not be an admission of guilt by the defendant, but it translates that the court will consider the person guilty. As such, the consequences will bear the same weight. There are important factors to note in the explanation of this type of plea. First, for one to be able to employ it is a privilege. It isn’t a right to which people are automatically entitled. Therefore, the court must consent to accept the plea. This involves specifics that a judge will use as determinants to accept or reject a plea of no contest:

  • Does the defendant have adequate legal representation
  • Has the charged person entered into the plea voluntarily with complete understanding of it
  • If there are co-defendants, the judge will weigh the pleading defendant’s degree of culpability
  • Does the defendant fully understand the alleged charges and the punitive ramifications of them
  • Is the person answering before the court aware that the court views no contest as a guilty plea despite no admission of guilt

It’s mandatory for the judge to formally discuss such points with the defendant in open court. An acceptance of plea cannot be granted otherwise. As with most things, there are pros and cons to the choice of a nolo contendere plea.

Advantages

The most obvious advantage to pleading no contest is the avoidance of a public trial. There may be certain embarrassing or self-incriminating facts that the defendant would rather not have aired in the light of open court.
Economics could be another favorable factor to consider. Criminal trials, known for uncertain lengths, can send relative costs soaring.

One critical benefit speaks directly to legal procedure. The defendant’s plea may not be employed in a civil suit for the same offense because it is not an admission of guilt.

Disadvantages

The major disadvantage of a no-contest plea is its very definition. Because there’s no admission of guilt on the defendant’s part, yet the court deems the defendant guilty, the convicted person is often left in a bog of misunderstanding. This has become the basis for many instances of erroneous interpretation of the procedure overall.

Another downside is that the defendant is given nothing in return for choosing this type of plea. In no way is a person’s sentence ameliorated by opting to forgo the time and expense of a jury trial. The full range of penalties commensurate to the precise crime is at the court’s disposal.

The bottom line is that no one should enter into any kind of plea without proper legal counsel.

Double Jeopardy Law

/in /by

Legal jeopardy is being exposed to the danger of a conviction and punishment in a court of law. Double jeopardy is a defense that can be raised in a criminal prosecution. The general rule of double jeopardy bars a second prosecution for the same offense. Courts have carved out many exceptions to this fundamental rule of constitutional law, but in Monge vs. California, the U.S. Supreme Court said that double jeopardy can attach in three circumstances. First, a person can’t be prosecuted a second time after they were found not guilty of the same offense. They can’t be prosecuted for that same offense again either if they were already found guilty. Third, there can’t be multiple punishments for the same offense.

Origin of double jeopardy

The roots of the notion of double jeopardy are so deep that it’s origin isn’t completely clear. It may have came over on the Mayflower. The charter of liberties for the Massachusetts Bay Colony specifically addressed it in 1641. That charter provided the framework for the Bill of Rights. Both before and after independence, colonies recognized or adopted the prohibition through their case law in the courts. It was made part of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 where it was stated that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” It remains a fundamental premise of American law nearly 225 years later.

How double jeopardy is used today

The two basic rules involving double jeopardy in a court of competent jurisdiction involve when it attaches. In a bench trial when a judge hears all of the evidence and determines guilt or innocence, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn in. In a jury trial, it attaches whe2n the jury is sworn in. Double jeopardy doesn’t stop a federal prosecution after a not guilty verdict in a state prosecution. It doesn’t operate as a bar to another trial if a defendant appeals a conviction successfully, but prevailing in an appeal on a lesser charge like second degree murder would preclude a new trial on a new charge of first degree murder. Should an appellate court find that a conviction was based on insufficient evidence, another prosecution isn’t permitted. Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protection doesn’t apply in the case of a deadlocked jury, nor does it apply in the case of a mistrial if the defendant moved or consented to it, since the trial is deemed to have had no legal effect and invalid. Another trial might not be permitted if the defendant objected to the mistrial or did not otherwise consent to it. Another prosecution won’t be permitted if the mistrial was declared as a result of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.

Since the purpose of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is to prevent the burden of two or more trials, a defendant who raises double jeopardy objections before the commencement of a trial can ordinarily immediately appeal an adverse ruling. This exception is contrary to the general rule that doesn’t permit appeals of orders that aren’t final. Otherwise, the primary area contested turns on the bench or jury trial and when jeopardy attaches prior to judgment.

The “Raise the Age” Debate: Texas Increases Criminal Age to 18

/in /by

The State of Texas has maintained that individuals who commit a crime at the age of 17 or above can be tried as adults. However, this policy is drawing criticism from activists on both sides of the isle. Some people say that the minimum age for criminal sentencing should be increased because many people make mistakes in their youth. In contrast, opponents cite the increased cost of juvenile detention centers and fairness as reasons why the age requirement for adult sentencing should be decreased. Below are both sides of the debate about whether teens should be tried as adults in the court of law.

Situation in Texas

The State of Texas has often been considered as a key driver of criminal legislation in the United States. Texas has historically imposed harsher penalties for criminal offenses. However, Texas is one of only a few states that automatically tries all individuals as adults if they are at least 17 years of age. Many states try individuals as adults they are at least 18 years old. Therefore, it is significant to consider the lower age threshold used in the State of Texas.

The Texas rule that made anyone over 17 years of age automatically liable for adult criminal penalties was originally passed in 1918. As a result, this has long been a core component of criminal legislation in Texas. The 17-year threshold is also important because Texas levies high criminal penalties for murder and manslaughter. Even in today’s world, Texas continues to apply the death penalty more than any other state.

The 17-year threshold has become an important topic of debate in Texas because of recent Supreme Court rulings. In the year 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down legislation by Texas Governor Rick Perry that would have automatically subjected all individuals found guilty of murder to life in prison. Many people in the legal community have questioned the wisdom of life sentences for young offenders who have become rehabilitated. This issue has initiated a fierce debate throughout the United States that is likely to continue for many years.

Legislation in Other States

States vary significantly in the way that they classify criminal offenses. The Constitution of the United States offers significant flexibility for individual states to determine their own policies regarding criminal offenses. New York and North Carolina automatically try offenders as adults if they are at least 16 years old. In contrast, many states do not apply adult criminal penalties unless an individual is at least 18 years old. The underlying drivers of criminal penalty variation are determined by the political leanings of individuals in each state. Since these factors can vary significantly, criminal legislation can be very different from one state to the next.

Supporters of Lower Age Classification

Supporters of younger age thresholds site several legitimate factors. Studies have shown that the total cost of housing a juvenile offender is more than seven times the cost of an ordinary adult prisoner. Therefore, supporters believe that the costs associated with the penal system could be significantly reduced by cutting the number of juvenile offenders. Supporters also cite that younger offenders should not be given a break for committing the same crime.

Supporters of Higher Age Classification

Many people also support higher age classifications for trying individuals as adult criminal offenders. These people often cite how the limited education of younger offenders can drive some people to commit offenses that they later regret. Supporters of higher age thresholds also believe that rehabilitation programs are more effective than traditional incarceration. Studies have shown that juvenile detention programs can significantly decrease the likelihood of an individual committing a crime in the future. In contrast, the adult penal system can actually increase the chances of an individual committing another offense.

Continuing the Debate

The debate about the minimum age thresholds for adult criminal sentencing will be fierce in the years ahead. Many people have strong opinions about how young people should be tried in the criminal justice system. While legislation will be slow, it is likely that many states will begin to increase the minimum age classification for charging young offenders as adults. However, the fundamentals of the Constitution will continue to drive variation between states and intensify the debate throughout the country.

Texas Incarceration Costs

/in /by

Prisoners and prisons in Texas are expensive. However, not everyone knows exactly how much the state pays to run the corrections system, both in aggregate and per inmate. In this article, we will discuss these costs in full for the Texas penal system and analyze the implications of these numbers for the Texas taxpayer.

Breaking Down What Texas Spends

It is not easy to isolate an exact number for how much the Texas government spends on prisons. This is because some of the money that Texas spends to run its prisons comes from parts of the state’s budget outside of the specific budget for the Department of Criminal Justice. Examples include the cost of benefits for prison workers, the cost of capital for prisons, and legal costs. It is not always possible to get numbers for these categories, because they are not part of the budget designated for funding incarceration.

Estimating Costs

A nonprofit organization, the Vera Institute of Justice, examines state governments all over the country to learn about what they spend for incarcerated prisoners. In total, Texas spends 2.5 billion dollars in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s budget for prison expenditures. On top of that, Texas needs to pay for the retirement benefits and health benefits of prison workers outside that budget. Both of these systems are underfunded- Texas will need to fully fund all the money that it is obligated to spend for these benefits in the future, and it will need to pay interest the longer it waits. These employee benefit payments and obligations total about 500 million dollars. The state also needs to pay money to service loans that it took out to support the prison system, as well as pay for administrative costs of running prisons. Overall, the state pays about 3.3 billion dollars. This is a low estimate, because the costs of judgements and legal claims cannot be estimated. All of these numbers reflect the 2010 fiscal year.

Cost Per Prisoner and Taxpayer

Texas houses about 155,000 people in its prisons. That means that the total expenditure per prisoner per year is at least $21,390. To put it in another perspective, in 2010 Texas had 25.26 million residents. That implies that each resident paid $130 per year to maintain the prison system. Texas does not levy a personal income tax on its residents. That means that it has to fund that money through the state sales tax and corporate taxes. If the state sales tax rate is 6.25 percent, that means each Texan needs to buy about $139 worth of things to pay for the prison system.

While the aggregate numbers may seem high at first glance, when they are broken down into per-resident figures, they are not that large. It does not take that much tax revenue per person to support the prison system, at least using 2010 figures. Of course, there may be non-monetary costs to incarcerating prisoners, but those are beyond the scope of this treatment.

What to Expect at DUI Checkpoints

/in /by

DUI checkpoints are being used with ever increasing frequency around the United States. This includes not only in major and mid-sized cities, but on highways and in smaller communities as well. Because of the rather ubiquitous nature of DUI checkpoints, it is important for a driver to understand what to expect at this type of inspection point.

Proof of Identity

When a vehicle is stopped at a DUI checkpoint, the first thing that occurs is that the law enforcement officers on duty request identification from the driver. The driver will be required to present his or her valid driver’s license.

In addition to providing the law enforcement officers with a valid driver’s license, the driver will also need to present proof that the motor vehicle is insured and the registration for it. In the end, the failure to present any one of these articles can result in a person being issues a citation.

Basic Questions from Officer

The law enforcement officers on duty at the checkpoint quickly visually inspect a vehicle and its occupants to note any signs of intoxication. Officers primarily rely on sight and smell to identify potentially intoxicated drivers.

When making these observations, officers sometimes will question the driver, and perhaps the other occupants of the vehicle, to ascertain additional information about whether the driver may have consumed a mind altering substance before driving.

A person at a DUI checkpoint needs to keep in mind that he or she is under no obligation to respond to any questions put forth by the officers. Although refusing to respond to questions may elevate the stop to a different and more intense level, there truly are instances in which it is unwise for a driver to respond to questions. For example, if the driver has had a drink or two during dinner, he or she probably should avoid responding to questions about that fact. The drinking of an alcoholic beverage does not mean that a person is impaired, even applying the strictest of DUI laws on the books in the United States.

Field Sobriety Test

If an officer at a DUI checkpoint reasonably believes that a driver may have been drinking, may be intoxicated or otherwise under the influence of mind altering substances, the officer may request that the driver perform what are known as field sobriety tests. An example of a field sobriety test is walking in a straight line, toe to heel. for a specific distance.

Blood Alcohol Test

If a driver does not successfully complete the field sobriety tests, an officer at a DUI checkpoint may request that he or she submit to a blood alcohol test, oftentimes referred to as a Breathalyzer. This test is designed to detect the presence and amount of alcohol in a person’s system.

Move On

Provided that the officers at a DUI checkpoint find nothing out of the ordinary and do not suspect intoxication, the most common thing that happens at a DUI checkpoint is the driver is motioned onward. This occurs after a quick review of a driver’s license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration.

Got Pulled Over? Know Your Rights

/in /by

If a police officer signals you to pull over, you should comply as soon as possible as it may be easier to deal with a police officer if they are not angry or frustrated. Keep in mind that officers are often attacked during traffic stops and so a police officer approaching your car will be viewing you as a potential threat. Furthermore, they have the right to use deadly force and to arrest, which means that you should take your conduct during a traffic stop very seriously. Comply with their demands and provide them with your driver’s license and insurance information. However, remember that you do have rights; if you are asked to pull over, be mindful of the following:

  1. You Have the Right to Remain Silent
    This is arguably the most well known right and yet it is one of the areas where many people get themselves into trouble. A case against you may be won or lost based on what you say to the police officer. Speak as little as possible. “Sure, officer” is all you need to say as you comply. Questions like “do you know why you were stopped?” are designed to get you to admit guilt. Do not answer them.
  2. You Cannot be Detained for an Unreasonable Length of Time
    While there is no set length of time for a traffic stop; however, an officer cannot prolong your detention beyond the time they need to perform registration checks and other basic tasks.
  3. You Have the Right to Refuse a Search of Your Vehicle
    You should not consent to a search, even if they threaten to bring in the K-9 unit. Among the reasons to refuse a search is the fact that you have no control over your vehicle at that point. The fourth amendment offers you protection from a search of your home, vehicle and your pockets. If they cannot see an illegal object in your car, they cannot legally search it without a warrant. They need a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity; note that sudden furtive movements after being pulled over can give rise to that suspicion. Note also that if there are any illegal objects in plain sight, they can open the door to seize them. If they see any other illegal items while in your car, they can seize those too. Bear in mind that if the officer has a warrant, you have to allow them to search.
  4. You Have the Right to Record Your Traffic Stop
    Even though a police officer may be filming the traffic stop using their dash cam, the first amendment gives you the right to film it as well. You should make sure that in the effort to film the traffic stop you do not stall or interfere with the officer or you could be arrested for obstructing them. Along with recording the traffic stop itself, you may also request and record identification information from the officers present.
  5. You Have the Right to Refuse a Breathalyzer Test
    In many cases, this will not be a good idea since some states will suspend your license for refusing. If the police officer suspects you of drinking, then they have probable cause and can be taken back to the station to be tested.

While traffic stops can be stressful, it is essential that you remain calm at all times and do your best to cooperate. Remember, you do have to pull over when directed to do so but you are also protected by the law.

The Legal Drinking Age

/in /by

The legal drinking age in the United States makes it illegal for everyone under the age of 21 to purchase or consume alcohol in public. The legal drinking age has been debated in the country since the days of prohibition over 90 years ago. Since there are arguments for both lowering and raising the legal drinking age, the debate should continue for many years to come.

Why is the Legal Drinking Age 21?

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21 years old because of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which passed in July 1984. Prior to the passing of this law, it was up to individual states to decide their legal drinking age. This meant that people over the age of 18 may purchase alcohol in their home state while not being able to purchase it in a neighboring state. When the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed, 29 states had a legal drinking age lower than 21. While the legal drinking age is still considered a state law, any state that does not have a legal drinking age of 21 will not receive their allotted 10 percent of the national highway construction fund from the federal government. While the law passed in 1984, it was not until 1995 that every state was in compliance.

Should Drinking Age Be Lowered or Raised?

While there have been debates on the legal drinking age for nearly 100 years, it does not appear that they will stop any time soon. The increase of drunk driving fatalities among young drivers was one of the biggest reasons for the increase in the legal drinking age. The United States remains the only developed country in the world with a legal drinking age of 21. This fact has fueled the debate for supporters of a lower drinking age. If people in Europe can responsibly drink at the age of 18, then there is no reason this can’t be done in the United States. Some people also want to raise the legal drinking age because of the continued increase of drunk driving cases among young drivers in the country.

Texas Zero Tolerance Law

While some states allow consumption of alcohol under parental supervision after turning 18, Texas has a zero tolerance law when it comes to underage drinking. If someone under the age of 21 is caught with any trace of alcohol in their system while driving, then they will receive a DWI, which cause them to have their license suspended. Minors will also receive a ticket if they consume, purchase or possess alcohol in the state.

Advice for Responsible Drinking

The best way to responsibly drink is to only consume alcohol after reaching the legal drinking. It can be tough for people that just hit the legal drinking age to drink responsibly because they want to make up for lost time. Everyone handles alcohol in a different manner, so it is best to only consume a few drinks until you know your limits. If you are planning on drinking, it is also imperative that you do not drive for the rest of the night. If you have a few drinks with a small group of friends, then you will have no problem enjoying your new freedom.