Firearms attorney

Minor cases with innocent defendants follow a standard script:

Beginning: I will not plead guilty to something I didn't do
Ending: My attorney got me a great plea bargain

Note that even though the op had an "affirmative defense", the state did not walk away - it insisted on a symbolic victory of a CWOF to preserve the prosecutor's win record.
 
My record is chock full of CWOF charges from my younger days. All stupid crap, but I have a felony charge that was dismissed. The felony was the only thing the chief asked about. He wanted to know the circumstances and I basically said “there were no circumstances. The charge was dismissed.” I got my LTC.
 
Alford pleas result in a court finding of guilty and are entered as such on your record. CWOFs are not. Alfordizing a plea will not save you from PP status.

What an Alford plea does is prevent a civil plaintiff, or prosecution in another case, from using the fact that "you admitted guilt" against you in another proceeding.

Like it or not the standard of proof in practice varies based on the seriousness of the penalty. Just look at the SJC decision that discharge within 500ft of a dwelling is a per-se offense with no scienter requirement. Also note that when they concluding the penalty was minimal, the court did not even consider lifetime state PP status as part of the penalty when making the decision the punishment was small.
It's not so that an Alford plea necessarily means a guilty disposition. In state court in Mass in fact it's often regarded as a pure admission to sufficient facts and no more. The disposition associated with it is a separate determination. Many judges won't agree to an Alford plea unless their particularly eager to dispose of a case.
 
It's not so that an Alford plea necessarily means a guilty disposition. In state court in Mass in fact it's often regarded as a pure admission to sufficient facts and no more. The disposition associated with it is a separate determination. Many judges won't agree to an Alford plea unless their particularly eager to dispose of a case.
My experience was the opposite. I was frequently the victim of over zealous policing By Plymouth’s finest and it always seemed like the courts were aware of it. Every single time I went to court the judge always asked “do you want to dispose of this today or take it to trial?”

a 19-20 year old kid on his own can’t afford a trial and it was always just CWOF (misdemeanors) I don’t even remember ever admitting sufficient facts to convict
 
My experience was the opposite. I was frequently the victim of over zealous policing By Plymouth’s finest and it always seemed like the courts were aware of it. Every single time I went to court the judge always asked “do you want to dispose of this today or take it to trial?”

a 19-20 year old kid on his own can’t afford a trial and it was always just CWOF (misdemeanors) I don’t even remember ever admitting sufficient facts to convict
While the lawyers here, and others, may say that an admission to sufficient facts is always a part of a CWOF, it is in fact not a legal requirement. And I know of at least one case where no such admission (a.k.a. a green sheet, because the form you sign is green) was made with a CWOF. So a CWOF does not automatically mean an admission to sufficient facts. So if you have a CWOF, check with the court, if there was such an admission there will be a form on file with the court.
 
My experience was the opposite. I was frequently the victim of over zealous policing By Plymouth’s finest and it always seemed like the courts were aware of it. Every single time I went to court the judge always asked “do you want to dispose of this today or take it to trial?”

a 19-20 year old kid on his own can’t afford a trial and it was always just CWOF (misdemeanors) I don’t even remember ever admitting sufficient facts to convict
A cwof only entered after an admission to sufficient facts. Your docket sheets would all have the box checked for admission to sufficient facts on the clerk was doing their job.

Now it is true that a couple maverick judges used to impose pretrial probation and call it a "continuance without a finding without a finding" but that was illegal.
 
While the lawyers here, and others, may say that an admission to sufficient facts is always a part of a CWOF, it is in fact not a legal requirement. And I know of at least one case where no such admission (a.k.a. a green sheet, because the form you sign is green) was made with a CWOF. So a CWOF does not automatically mean an admission to sufficient facts. So if you have a CWOF, check with the court, if there was such an admission there will be a form on file with the court.
Respectfully i disagree. Any cwof entered without an admission is an illegal disposition. That term gets thrown about inaccurately. In fact on Thursday i heard a clerk magistrate even tell someone that after a complaint didn't issue against a person that the matter was continued without a finding. That's ridiculous.
 
A cwof only entered after an admission to sufficient facts. Your docket sheets would all have the box checked for admission to sufficient facts on the clerk was doing their job.

Now it is true that a couple maverick judges used to impose pretrial probation and call it a "continuance without a finding without a finding" but that was illegal.
My recollection is the judge asking if i wanted to settle the case today. I said yes and he banged the gavel and said CWOF for 6 months, $100 court costs and that was the end of it. I don’t even think I had a lawyer most of the time.

this is back in the late 80’s early 90’s and the charges were always contempt of cop bullshit or driving while being a long haired teenager
 
I didn't think we had to prove our innocence in America.
In America? Or in Massachusetts?

Texas is no better. Here's a case of an innocent man wrongly convicted of murder. The DNA proves it. Everyone believes him, including the original court and DA, but the Court of Criminal Appeals (the Texas highest court for criminal cases) insists that he has to prove his innocence.

 
Technically you admitted to sufficient facts to prove the case and were placed on probation contemplating a dismissal if you successfully completed probation. For whatever reason, evidently the police being satisfied about some issue, the court terminated your probstion early and the case was dismissed. It looks like you may have paid restitution or a fine early.

You basically described CWOF, as did a few of us before, so I don't know what your point was.

No fines or restitution paid. Police checked out my story and found it to be accurate. A lot hinged on what I told them. That's it.
 
Back
Top Bottom