The Alford plea is a rarely utilized but widely debated criminal plea. The Alford plea is a type of guilty plea where the defendant pleads guilty to avoid further punishment while simultaneously asserting their innocence. Alford pleas are most often used in sex offense cases, murders, and domestic violence cases, and are entered at higher rates by those charged with serious offenses who are subsequently facing significant prison sentences. The Alford plea came to fruition in North Carolina v. Alford where, in an effort to avoid the death penalty on a murder charge, a Judge allowed Alford to enter a plea of “guilty” after testifying under oath that he did not commit the murder and continuing to proclaim innocence throughout trial.

Defendants generally enter Alford pleas because they believe that the state has enough evidence to convict them during a jury trial, and even though they maintain their innocence throughout the court process, they avoid a harsher charge and/or penalty by taking advantage of the plea offered by the prosecution.

By accepting an Alford plea, through its representatives on the Court, the State may be allowing a wrongful conviction to knowingly be handed down. Alford pleas are not entered by defendants who wrongfully confess or are found guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt only to have their convictions overturned by new DNA findings in the future. Instead, these defendants are proclaiming their innocence, possibly by testifying under oath, but are being told that the evidence against them is so weighted in favor of a guilty jury decision that they must plead guilty to a lesser, though still quite serious, charge to avoid death or a lengthy sentence.

The purpose of this paper is not to state that all Alford pleas are entered by innocent defendants, as that would not be factual. Instead, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the unintended consequences of entering an Alford plea and how those consequences can be mitigated by sharing them with defendants before an Alford plea is accepted. The paper will also provide an exploration of enhanced safeguards courts may implement when accepting Alford pleas to minimize the number of wrongful convictions associated with Alford pleas.

Starting with Part I, I will discuss the origin of the Alford plea, how the Alford plea differs from other guilty and “nolo contendere” pleas, as well as the Alford plea’s benefits and criticisms in academia. This section will also provide a brief overview of the two main stages in a case where an Alford plea may be entered by a criminal defendant.

Part II will discuss the different uses and acceptance of the Alford plea in various jurisdictions, including juvenile court, state courts, and federal courts.

Part III will discuss the consequences that follow a defendant’s entry of an Alford plea, including the effect an Alford plea has on postconviction proceedings and civil suits related to the charge where Alford was entered. This section will also outline victim views of the Alford plea and discuss the jurisdictional ban on an Alford pleader’s access to postconviction relief normally reserved for the wrongfully convicted.

In Part IV I will make the case that Alford pleas may lead to state-sanctioned wrongful convictions. Alford pleas are accepted by prosecutors and judges though the defendant asserts their innocence throughout the negotiation process or trial, which makes the State seem complicit in wrongfully convicting innocent people. Accepting such wrongful convictions may often prove easier than facing trial for all attorneys involved.

This section will include a brief review of different cases where Alford pleas have been entered by victims of wrongful convictions and will briefly examine their real-life experience seeking post-conviction relief. Most notably, this section will include a review of the case of the West Memphis Three. In this case, three young men were convicted of murder, one of whom was sentenced to the death penalty based on a coerced and recanted confession from one of the young men who had an IQ score of seventy-two. Upon review of the case and pending a second trial based on possible new evidence, the men were given the chance to enter an Alford plea, securing their release after eighteen years of incarceration.

I will conclude with recommendations to combat state-sanctioned wrongful convictions seen alongside Alford pleas, starting with a discussion of a proposed “Alford Hearing” which would be implemented to ensure the standard of proof is met by the prosecutor in the eyes of a judge. Next, a recommendation to send all Alford plea cases to trial will be discussed, so long as the removal of more severe punishment is guaranteed as an outcome of the trial. Either recommendation should be accompanied by in-depth discussion of the unintended consequences of Alford plea convictions on a person’s record before any court accepts a defendant’s Alford plea.