Nolo Contendere

Nolo contendere, often shortened to a "no contest" plea, is a criminal procedure device under which a defendant neither admits nor disputes the charge but accepts whatever sentence the court imposes. For purposes of the criminal case, the legal effect is essentially the same as a guilty plea: the court enters a conviction and proceeds to sentencing. The critical distinction lies outside the criminal courtroom — because there is no formal admission of guilt, the plea generally cannot be used against the defendant as an evidentiary admission in a parallel civil lawsuit arising from the same conduct.

In U.S. federal practice, the plea is governed by Rule 11(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits it only with the court's consent. Rule 11(a)(3) instructs the judge to consider the parties' views and the public interest before accepting it. Federal Rule of Evidence 410 bars admission of a withdrawn nolo plea, or statements made during plea discussions, in later civil or criminal proceedings.

Availability varies by jurisdiction. Most U.S. states allow the plea in some form, though a handful restrict or prohibit it. It is unavailable or unrecognized in many common-law jurisdictions outside the United States, including England and Wales.

The plea has featured in several high-profile matters. Vice President Spiro Agnew entered a nolo contendere plea to a single count of federal tax evasion in October 1973, resigning the same day. Corporate defendants frequently use it to resolve antitrust, environmental, or regulatory prosecutions while limiting exposure to follow-on civil damages — a tactic prosecutors and courts sometimes resist for precisely that reason.

For immigration, professional licensing, and many collateral-consequence purposes, a nolo plea is typically treated as a conviction. Defendants therefore gain protection chiefly against private civil plaintiffs, not against the regulatory or deportation consequences of the underlying offense.