Doctoral Dissertation Research: Examining Different Kinds of Guilty Pleas

被告既能认罪，又能保持清白，这似乎是一个矛盾。然而，在北卡罗来纳州诉阿尔福德案（1970年）中，最高法院认为，声称无罪但希望避免在审判中被定罪的被告仍然可以认罪。根据阿尔福德案的判决，法院必须找到足够的有罪事实依据，然后才能允许阿尔福德提出抗辩。然而，法院从未对“充分”下过定义，这些请求可以因各种原因而被接受，但适用的标准不同。尽管近50年来这些请求的合法性和围绕它们的争议，很少有人知道如何阿尔福德请求在实践中的功能。这项研究将提供急需的洞察力阿尔福德认罪，包括证据的类型和强度是否不同，在阿尔福德认罪案件相比，传统的认罪案件。这项研究也将提供一个更好的了解这些认罪是否运作的最高法院的意图，这反过来又可以告知如何目前的辩诉交易政策和做法可能会得到改善upon.This项目将解决差距在文献周围的阿尔福德认罪，并完成两个具体目标：（1）比较阿尔福德和传统的认罪案件，并检查在处理的差异（即，处理案件的时间长度）和结果（即，不同的认罪类型收到的判决之间的差异）;和（2）检查是否证据的力量不同，在阿尔福德认罪案件和证据的力量如何因素到提供，谈判，并接受阿尔福德认罪的过程。该项目将使用混合方法，包括分析弗吉尼亚州行政法院记录和采访法院演员，以提供更多的信息和了解这些独特的请求，以及证据的强度如何影响法律的演员和被告作出的决定。分层线性模型（HLM）将被用来检查认罪类型（即，阿尔福德或传统的认罪）和因变量（证据的强度，认罪折扣，以及处理案件的时间长度），同时适当控制县级性质的数据。此外，与检察官、法官和辩护律师的访谈将更好地了解提供、谈判和接受阿尔福德请求的过程，以及证据的强度如何影响这一过程。这项研究的发现可以帮助为未来的研究提供信息，包括其他州正在做什么来确保在阿尔福德认罪案件中建立有罪的事实基础，并协助发展证据基于实践的证据在辩诉交易中的作用和法院接受所有类型的认罪。这一裁决反映了NSF的法定使命，并已被认为是值得通过评估使用的支持，基金会的学术价值和更广泛的影响评审标准。

The ability of defendants to plead guilty while maintaining their innocence seems like a contradiction. However, in North Carolina v. Alford (1970) the Supreme Court held that defendants who claim innocence but want to avoid the risk of conviction at trial can still plead guilty. Based on the Alford decision, courts must find a sufficient factual basis of guilt before allowing an Alford plea to take place. However, "sufficient" has never been defined by the courts and these pleas could be accepted for a variety of reasons with differential standards applied. Despite the legality of these pleas for nearly 50 years and the controversy surrounding them, very little is known about how Alford pleas function in practice. This study will provide much-needed insight about Alford pleas, including whether the type and strength of evidence differ in Alford plea cases in comparison to traditional guilty plea cases. This research will also provide a greater understanding of whether these pleas operate as the Supreme Court intended, which in turn can inform how current plea bargaining policies and practices may be improved upon.This project will address the gap in the literature surrounding Alford pleas and accomplish two specific goals: (1) Compare Alford and traditional guilty plea cases and examine differences in processing (i.e., the length of time to dispose of the case) and outcomes (i.e., the differences between the sentences received by plea type); and (2) Examine whether the strength of evidence differs in Alford plea cases and how the strength of evidence factors into the process of offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas. This project will use a mixed methods approach that involves analyzing Virginia administrative court records and interviewing court actors to provide more information and understanding about these unique pleas and how the strength of evidence may impact the decisions made by legal actors and defendants. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) will be used to examine the relationship between the type of plea (i.e., Alford or traditional guilty plea) and the dependent variables (strength of evidence, plea discount, and length of time to dispose of case), while appropriately controlling for the county-level nature of the data. Additionally, interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys will provide better understanding of the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas and how the strength of evidence factors into the process. Findings from this study can help inform future studies, including what other states are doing to ensure that the factual basis of guilt is established in Alford plea cases, and aid in the development of evidence-based practices surrounding the role of evidence in plea bargaining and the courts' acceptance of all types of guilty pleas.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.