Criminal justice case - Essay Example

The paper illustrates that Fourteenth Amendment states that no state may deprive a man of ‘life, liberty, or property’ without due process of law. As there is a possibility of conflict between State and Federal law resulting in jeopardy, US attorneys are directed to check with the Attorney General before prosecuting any case that shows the possibility of a double jeopardy. There is a possibility of double jeopardy when the defendant in a trial prefers not to testify his defense and later on asserts that he is not given ample opportunity to defend his side.

So, it is for the trial judge to see that the defendant’s refusal to testify his own defense properly comes on the trial record. Otherwise, it later leads to double jeopardy. The general notion is that it is considered similar to a guilty plea, and as it saves time and money, and as it calls for mercy, there is a possible reduction in sentence. At this juncture, as Justice Bhatt, depending on the circumstances of the case, the court can even immediately impose sentence. It seems that by not taking the stand in his own defense, the defendant has not made any influence on the jury.

It seems like the usual way of concluding a case when the defendant does not defend his own stand. In this particular case, the victim identified the defendant in a lineup. In addition, the defendant did not care to take his defense. In the normal course, either the defendant can plead ‘not guilty’ or ‘guilty’; in addition, the defendant can also plea ‘nolo contendere’ which means ‘no contest’. This simply means that the defendant is ready to accept any sentence handed down, but does not admit the factual guilt.

Thus, in practice, it is similar to a guilty plea. In this particular case, the defendant chose not to take the stand of his defense and hence ‘nolo contendere’. In other words, he pleaded guilty by not taking defense. Thus, it is evident that judges are not unduly influenced by the defendant. The general purpose of such a denial to contest the charges is to reduce further exposure to civil liability. Thus, it often results in compromise dispositions of criminal cases (Criminal trial process).

If the defendant does not testify his defense, he agrees to accept the punishment given by the jury. As far as his refusal to take stand in his defense is properly placed on trial record, he does not deserve the right to appeal. He will not be able to claim lack of legal assistance. However, guilty plea and nolo contendere differ in the fact that while the conviction based on a guilty plea is admissible against the defendant in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the conviction based on nolo contendere is inadmissible.

However, the judgment reached on the basis of nolo conendere can be used for evidentiary purposes. The origin of ‘nolo contendere’ can be traced back to the English common law, and according to the classic definition of solo contendere, it is an implied confession, but in a manner yielding to the mercy of the king, and wishing to submit to a small fine.