Guilty or Not? The Alford Case in Juvenile Court

​The concept of an Alford plea is interesting but can be perplexing to those who are not familiar with the criminal justice process. In 1970, a man named Henry Alford was accused of murder in North Carolina. Mr. Alford maintained his innocence, but since he was facing the death penalty if convicted at trial, he accepted a plea deal. He continued to proclaim his innocence during the process, telling the judge that he was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He appealed and ultimately the United States Supreme Court heard the matter. They decided that his guilty plea would stand, even though Mr. Alford said he was innocent. The court explained that if it is in the best interest of the accused to plead rather than risk trial, and if strong evidence exists, then one can enter a guilty plea while maintaining their innocence.
 
Many of my adult clients through the years have utilized “Alford pleas.”  Typically, my client would explain that they do not want to go to trial, yet do not want to make an admission of guilt. They are saying that while they do not agree with the allegation, they also believe that there is a real possibility they could be convicted at trial based on the evidence. They still have to state in court that they are pleading guilty. Thus, when the judge asks, “how do you plead,” they would have to say “guilty,” however, I would explain to the judge that their plea is tendered under the Alford case. At the end of the process, the person will still have a criminal conviction on their record. The Alford plea, in my opinion, is more of a tool to resolve a matter in a way that a client is comfortable with when they may not agree with some or all of the facts.
 
The concept of the Alford plea was analyzed in September 2015 by the Georgia Court of Appeals in the context of a juvenile court proceeding. A 13-year-old child entered a plea (referred to as an “admission” in juvenile court) to a sexual abuse case under Alford. The juvenile court judge did not accept the plea under Alford and explained that the Juvenile Code (the governing body of law for the juvenile court system) does not authorize Alford pleas. The child challenged this decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  

The Court of Appeals decided that Alford pleas are allowed in Juvenile court, based on a few reasons. They explained that Georgia Juvenile Courts have historically allowed Alford pleas. They also said that there is nothing in the law prohibiting a child from making an admission under Alford and when the law was written, the lawmakers were fully aware that Alford pleas were acceptable. The Court of Appeals also went on to explain that the Juvenile Code is intended to provide treatment and rehabilitation and that the laws should be “liberally construed to reflect that the paramount welfare policy of this state is to determine and ensure the best interests of its children.”
(OCGA 15-11-1)
 
I think that it could be difficult for a juvenile to truly understand what an Alford plea means and how it affects their case in a practical sense.  Perhaps this is why the trial court ruled against it. However, every case has its own unique nuances and as an advocate for juveniles, I am thankful that this option has not been completely excluded because in some instances it could certainly make sense. I am always open to creative ways to resolve a case if the resolution is in line with rehabilitating the child.
 
My take-away to other advocates and parents would be to provide clear counseling and explanation to the child and their family if the Alford plea is an option. The child should understand:

1.  The meaning of an Alford admission
2. How it will affect their case (ie, they are still going to receive treatment or probation, and the Alford designation does mean a conviction stands)
3. Why it is the best resolution for their case.

 
I recommend writing these in a letter format to provide the family and scheduling a conference to ensure the child and their family are on the same page. This letter may also be provided to the judge during the hearing to alleviate any concerns they might have.
​
 Kathryn Boortz has a passion for working with youth and their families. ​She is the founder of Boortz Law, a law firm that focuses on juvenile defense.