"I pleaded guilty on second-degree murder because they said there is too much evidence, but I ain't shot no man. But I take the fault for the other man. I'm still pleading that you all got me to plead guilty. You told me to plead guilty, right? I'm not guilty, but I plead guilty. I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn't, they would gas me for it, and that is all." — Henry Alfred
"They said, pleat guilty to second-degree murder, and they guarantee he'd avoid the death penalty and only face a maximum of 30 years in prison." — Ashley Flowers (paraphrasing the plea deal)
"In the end, Supreme Court justices ruled in a landmark 6-3 vote against Henry Alfred. They said that Henry was not coerced into entering his guilty plea. It was his own decision, that he had weighed his options and chosen the one that made the most sense for him, the one that was in his best interest." — Ashley Flowers
The episode introduces the "Alfred plea," a legal strategy where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime they maintain they did not commit. This is typically employed when the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, and a conviction at trial would likely result in a severe sentence, such as the death penalty. The concept originated from the case of Henry Alfred in North Carolina in 1963, who was accused of murder. Facing a strong circumstantial case and the potential for capital punishment, Alfred's legal team advised him to accept a plea deal for second-degree murder, despite his claims of innocence, to avoid the death penalty. His statement in court articulated his predicament: pleading guilty due to pressure and overwhelming evidence, while still asserting his innocence.
The legal journey of Henry Alfred's case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that his plea was voluntary, establishing a precedent that a guilty plea is valid if it is in the defendant's best interest, even if they maintain innocence. The podcast then contrasts this with a "no contest" plea, highlighting that an Alfred plea is still a guilty plea for legal purposes, whereas a no contest plea does not admit guilt but accepts the penalty, often to avoid civil liability. This distinction is crucial for understanding the implications of each plea type.
A significant modern example discussed is the case of the West Memphis Three, who were convicted of murder in 1994. Years later, new DNA evidence cast doubt on their involvement. Facing the possibility of a new trial with an uncertain outcome, the three defendants accepted Alfred pleas in 2011. This allowed them to be released from prison immediately with time served, while still being officially considered convicted for the crime, a stark contrast to the individual circumstances of Henry Alfred's original case. The episode concludes by emphasizing the strategic nature of plea bargains and the necessity for defendants to carefully consider their options, noting that Alfred pleas are not permitted in all U.S. states.