Not a quite a question, more of a comment but feel free to express an opinion.
Would not surprise me any if and when KC agrees to an Alford Agreement. LOWP. Only has to admit the state has enough evidence to convict, no trial or evidence shown in court and she still can maintain the nanny did it. She could claim she is "protecting" her family by staying in jail. She did make a similar statement to CA & GA more than once.
The State has to agree to an
Alford plea. Some jurisdictions have a lot of
Alford pleas, whereas some have very few. I agree that if Casey were inclined to plead guilty, an
Alford plea would be right up her nasty little blame-deflecting alley:furious:, but I personally don't see the State accepting an
Alford plea in this case for several reasons. First, Casey has given names of others she insists are responsible. One of those persons has actually filed suit against her. Also, Baez is reportedly seeking the personnel files of the lead investigators and the defense presumably wants to use that info to trash those investigators and their work in this case. Further, the defense has been on a veritable media blitz, questioning the integrity of the investigation to date-- and now, they're questioning the integrity of the ME and FBI's ongoing autopsy and identification process. I don't think the State would accept an
Alford plea because it could appear tantamount to allowing Casey to say,
"well, since the entire government totally framed me and won't even
try to find the person who really killed my daughter, I'll just plead guilty. It's me vs. this corrupt government and you can't win when OCSO and the FBI set you up to take the fall!!"*:dance:*/*:liar:*/*:dance:*/*:liar:*/*:dance:*
I think the State would say *:hand:* to that.
Can you send some info on that Alford Agreement you mentioned- I just looked it up but cant seem to find any info on it- I am interested in reading about it. thanks
Alford pleas are very similar to
no lo contendere pleas. A
no lo contendere plea is one in which the defendant pleads "no contest" to the charges without admitting guilt--
no lo contendere literally means "I do not wish to argue."
Alford pleas are, for most purposes, essentially the same--
The defendant is pleading guilty to the charge, but the plea agreement allows him/her to maintain affirmative protestations of innocence.
Alford pleas are sometimes contemplated as "best interest pleas"-- the defendant's guilty plea is offered only as an admission that it's in his/her best interest to plead guilty and avoid a trial, because the prosecution would likely prevail at trial. It's like saying "I'm guilty but I'm not guilty," which, I do agree, seems like the only way Casey Anthony would ever admit to anything. Defendants entering
Alford pleas are still subject to sentencing guidelines and they incur the punishment they would have incurred if they were found guilty at trial :behindbar.
Personally, I think
Alford pleas are essentially semantic ego-buffers for defendants who can't or won't own up to their actions. :snooty:
I also think
Alford pleas are pretty contentious-- if one were the victim of a crime, they could understandably have trouble feeling justice was served if the perp were allowed to say "I'm guilty but I'm not guilty." Some victims, however, might prefer not having to go through the trial process and just be glad that the perp was being punished.
The last time I checked, 47 states (including FL & DC) allow for
Alford pleas-- however, this type of plea is neither guaranteed, nor prohibited by the Constitution and states can prohibit such pleas with a statute or a rule. Crucially, the judge and prosecutor both have to agree to an
Alford plea.
I guess an interesting question would be whether WS'ers would feel satisfied if Casey were allowed to enter an
Alford plea?
I know I wouldn't.
