When a person takes a plea agreement does that necessarily mean they really did it?

Question

When a person takes a plea agreement does that necessarily mean they really did it?

Answer 1

A plea agreement requires a guilty plea from the defendant.

I don't know about other states, but in Texas, the judge will directly ask the defendant, "Are you pleading guilty in this case because you are guilty and for no other reason?"

To which the defendant will say "Yes"...

Answer 2

Part Of The Process Of A Plea Is Addmitting In Court, Under Oath That The Defendent Did What They Are Pleaing To. It Has To Satisfy The Prosecutor And The Judge Before It Becomes Official. It Is Usually A Lesser Charge Than The Original Though Sometimes Its To The Original Charge Withe The Sentence Being Reduced To A Lesser Max Time.

Answer 3

An attorney will suggest you take a plea agreement anytime he thinks the outcome will be worse after a trial.

It doesn't necessarily mean they did it, it just means there is enough evidence to convict.

Answer 4

More often than not, yes.

Answer 5

There are two types of plea agreements in the US-

- In a standard agreement the suspect pleads guilty, has to admit their crime, and alocute the details of the crime.

- There is another scenario however known as an "Alford plea"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

"In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty."

The vast majority of people who take plea agreements are actually guilty, but if you're not and the evidence is overwhelming, then you should be looking at taking the Alford plea.

- David

Answer 6

Welll.....I wouldn't be so quick here, fellas.

Last Thursday I watched a felon take a plea in one of our local courts.  He was arrested by the CHP for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  He is a felon, and he was in possession of a firearm.  He didn't want to go back to prison, though, so his attorney, the judge, and the DA all agreed to prosecute him as a "prohibited person" in possession of a firearm.  That's the same as saying he was named in a restraining order, for example, and was found with a gun.

Was he really a prohibited person in possession of a firearm?  No, because he did not meet the elements of that crime - he was not prohibited as that law is written, he was a felon in possession of a firearm.  Everybody agreed he could be a prohibited person, though, because that crime can be a misdemeanor in California and the felon in possession cannot.  They sure showed him.

Possession of cocaine in California is a felony and there is no legal basis for making it a misdemeanor (unlike with methamphetamine, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor).  People are allowed to plead guilty to other crimes as misdemeanors or even to possession of cocaine as a misdemeanor, even though it just isn't.

So did the person plead guilty because they really did it?  In some cases, they are pleading guilty to a crime they didn't even technically commit so they can get a deal.  Go figure.