What is the Standard of Proof for Guilty Pleas?

Abstract

Among those who study or practice in the American criminal system, it is well known that almost all criminal convictions are accomplished through guilty pleas. That is, in state and federal courts, about 98% of defendants are convicted by plea, with the remaining 2% convicted at trial. The question we pose here is the following: What standard of proof is used to convict defendants by guilty plea? While the question is simple, the answers we discovered paint a complex web of inconsistency that places the reliability and accuracy of the criminal system in jeopardy. This article’s deep examination of case law over many decades and novel research studies capturing judge’s views on the issue of the applicable burden of proof at pleas lead to the identification of no less than four different approaches to the question in federal law and in practice by state and federal courts: (A) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) is the standard for guilty pleas, (B) Admitting guilt through a guilty plea alone satisfies any evidentiary burden that might exist, (C) BARD is not the standard for pleas as it is waived, and (D) A burden of proof remains, but it is something less than BARD. While inconsistency itself is a serious concern in a system built around the requirements of Due Process and Equal Protection, the findings of this first-of-its-kind article also point to the use of insufficient burdens of proof at pleas of guilty as a significant contributor to false pleas of guilty by the innocent. Therefore, this article concludes that the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard should be uniformly, consistently, and meaningfully applied in both the trial and guilty plea settings, and that the standard be non-waivable for pleas. The article concludes by encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue and adopt the recommendations found herein.