In an article for the Daily Journal, litigation & enforcement counsel Ryan Weinstein discussed the implications of Hunter Biden’s recent Alford plea to tax offenses , including the differences between an Alford plea and a nolo contendere plea.
“With a nolo plea, the defendant takes no position on guilt, and with an Alford plea, the defendant takes the position that he is not guilty,” explained Ryan. “It then falls to the court to determine whether there is a factual basis for the guilty plea. With a typical plea, the defendant will admit that he’s guilty.”
Ryan also noted that “although there’s no per-se rule that an Alford plea precludes the two-point deduction for acceptance of responsibility under the Sentencing Guidelines, it’s certainly a relevant factor for a judge to determine if a defendant has, in fact, accepted responsibility.”
Stay Up To Date with Ropes & Gray
Ropes & Gray attorneys provide timely analysis on legal developments, court decisions and changes in legislation and regulations.
Stay in the loop with all things Ropes & Gray, and find out more about our people, culture, initiatives and everything that’s happening.
We regularly notify our clients and contacts of significant legal developments, news, webinars and teleconferences that affect their industries.