Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

or what was getting into him....lol

[LPIDelta]

Yeah I just talked to one of my friends over lunch about this and he told me that he saw something on CNN about "other men" in Larry Craig's life who have not gone public--so given that, I'll stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. I totally agree with you sc--he pled guilty, that's it. You don't plead guilty unless you are, especially if you're a public figure in this day and age.

[MysticCat]

Well, apparently what he filed with the court this go around does, in fact, say that he mailed the plea in rather than appearing in court. I doubt that, alone, will have much affect though -- I'm guessing that between discussions with the prosecutor and boilerplate that I would expect is on the form, just the fact that he mailed it in won't help him too much.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Well, apparently what he filed with the court this go around does, in fact, say that he mailed the plea in rather than appearing in court. I doubt that, alone, will have much affect though -- I'm guessing that between discussions with the prosecutor and boilerplate that I would expect is on the form, just the fact that he mailed it in won't help him too much.

Wouldn't MAILING a plea show much more calculation then a verbal plea? To mail it, he would have to write it down and sign it, and put a stamp on it, and stick it in the mailbox, with chances all along the way for him to change his mind. A verbal plea could be a heat of the moment snap decision. He could have walked into the courthouse with every intention of pleading innocent, and at the last second with the pressure on and all of the charges laid out, changed his mind.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Maybe, or maybe not. If he was actually in court, the judge would not only question him but could observe his demeanor to see if it actually matched what he was saying or if he showed signs of duress, coercion, caprice, etc.

Plus, while I would guess that what he signed had all the "I understand that by entering a plea of guilty . . . ." language, and while I assume that his signature had an attestation that he had read and understood all of that, is there anybody who hasn't signed a document where we say we read and understood all the boilerplate, but we really didn't? In open court, the judge would be able to ask all of those questions and satisfy himself or herself that Craig really did understand it all and knew what he was doing in entering the plea.