This is from last November, as you can see from the date. I want to talk about the paragraph with the yellow highlighting.
Joe took an Alford plea.
I will admit that I never heard of such a thing before, but then again, I don’t have a whole lot of experience going to court. So I asked a lawyer, and I looked it up.
Plea bargaining, in and of itself, is a bit of a controversial topic. There are good arguments in favor of the practice (clears the docket, keeps the state from spending zillions of dollars trying people who readily admit guilt, or when it’s obvious they are guilty) and against the practice (tends to very much disadvantage the poor for various reasons, voids the defendant’s constitutional rights). I won’t go into all of that here, but it’s interesting.
In an ordinary plea bargain, the defendant is required to stand in court and admit guilt.
In 1970, the United States Supreme Court heard a case called North Carolina v. Alford, and ruled that there was no constitutional barrier to a person pleading guilty without admitting guilt. If this interests you terribly, here’s a place to start.
So, at its core, the Alford plea is simply a guilty plea in which the defendant does not have to stand in court and admit guilt. Everything else is the same.
. . . he was NOT stealing water nor did he threaten anyone with a weapon.
This is simply Nicole’s assertion. It is not a legal finding. In many cases involving plea bargains, the defendant agrees to plead guilty and by doing so, is convicted of a lesser crime. I don’t know if that was the case here, but it often is.
So, Nicole’s statement includes the ambiguous statement that Joe “took” an Alford plea and then consists solely of her own opinions.
But her alter identity (or her surrogate) is not ambiguous at all.
Notice the date on this. June 16, and that’s this year. Just a few days ago. Why was this brought up now?
Well, Joe is facing a courtroom yet again.
Joe Naugler was not found guilty of menacing.
Wrong. Totally false. He, in fact, was convicted of menacing.
Here are the court documents.
Notice the charge? Menacing.
I have highlighted all the places where this document (which is the Alford plea) uses the word “guilty.” How many times do they have to say it?
And notice the word highlighted in red?
. . . because of my conviction here today. . .
Let’s define these words.
Joe Naugler was, in fact, convicted of menacing. The only thing that is missing is an admission of guilt from him; however, prisons are slap full of people who have never admitted guilt.