U.S. v. Nguyen

42 Citing cases

  1. Galvan v. City of La Habra

    Case No. SACV 12-2103 JGB (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014)   Cited 12 times
    Denying summary judgment when plaintiff swore in deposition that he was shot by arresting officer after putting his empty hands up

    A plea of nolo contendere "is a special creature under the law," and "is not an admission of factual guilt." United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 36 (1970)). Rather, "[i]t merely allows the defendant so pleading to waive a trial and to authorize the court to treat him as if he were guilty," and for these reasons, "the nolo plea does not bear the same indicia of reliability as a guilty plea when used as evidence of underlying culpability." Id. at 1131-32.

  2. Jones v. State

    215 P.3d 1091 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining that Burcina , Lamb , and similar cases were "based on policy considerations," and noting that whether collateral estoppel applies involves "issues regarding the policies underlying the doctrine of issue preclusion"

    Charles Alan Wright and Andrew D. Leipold, Federal Practice and Procedure-Criminal (4th ed. 2008), § 175, 2009 Supplement, p. 15. This principle is illustrated by the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2006). The defendant in Nguyen was convicted under federal law for willful failure to comply with the terms of his supervised release by the immigration authorities.

  3. William N. v. Kimberly H.

    40 Misc. 3d 602 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Case law consistently distinguishes between guilty pleas, pursuant to which the defendant admits the facts underlying the criminal charge, and nolo contendere pleas, pursuant to which the defendant neither admits nor denies the underlying facts ( see, e.g., United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1131 [9th Cir.2006] [a nolo contendere plea is “first and foremost not an admission of factual guilt”]; accord United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562, 567–68 [3d Cir.2004];Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 60 [1st Cir.1999];U.S. v. Graham, 325 F.2d 922, 928 [6th Cir.1963];Town of Groton v. United Steelworkers of America, 254 Conn. 35, 757 A.2d 501, 511 [2000];Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353, 360 [Fla. 1988] [“A nolo plea means ‘no contest,’ not ‘I confess.’ [The defendant] does not plead either guilty or not guilty, and it does not function as such a plea.”]; Powers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 855 F.Supp. 199, 205 [W.D.Mich.1994];see also Mickler v. Fahs, 243 F.2d 515, 517 [5th Cir.1957] [“A plea of nolo contendere is a mere statement of unwillingness to contest and no more.

  4. United States v. Williams

    741 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that Alford plea from Washington state court was not probative of the commission of a crime in the federal revocation context because Washington does not treat Alford pleas "the same as a guilty plea"

    The question of whether an Alford plea entered in Washington is legally sufficient by itself to warrant a finding that a person on supervised release violated the prohibition against committing a new state crime is a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. But the conclusion that it is generally insufficient follows from this Court's holding in United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.2006), that a “conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea under these circumstances is not by itself sufficient evidence to prove a defendant committed the underlying crime.” Id. at 1130–31.

  5. United States v. Bash

    1:20-cr-00238 JLT SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2025)

    Under Federal Rule of Evidence 410, nolo contendere pleas and convictions are inadmissible against a defendant as proof that he or she committed the underlying crime(s) charged. See United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). A no contest conviction is also barred by the rule against hearsay.

  6. Key Compounds LLC v. Phasex Corp.

    Civ. 6:20-cv-00680-AA (D. Or. Aug. 31, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Defendants also contend that Reyter's no contest plea to the misdemeanor charge of exporting marijuana in sending the crude oil to Defendants for processing will serve to establish illegality in the performance of the contract. A plea of no contest or nolo contendere “is, first and foremost, not an admission of factual guilt, ” but “merely allows the defendant so pleading to waive a trial and to authorize the court to treat him as if he were guilty.” United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 113031 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 36 (1970)). In Massachusetts, courts have held

  7. Vieira v. Cnty. of Sacramento

    Case No. 18-cv-05431-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020)

    The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Evidence 410—though specifically referring only to pleas—bars the admission of no-contest pleas and convictions based on no-contest pleas as "proof that the pleader actually committed the underlying crimes charged." United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, Zalec may not seek admission of the convictions as evidence of Vieira's conduct during their interaction.

  8. Beckway v. DeShong

    NO. C07-5072 TEH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012)

    "A conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea under these circumstances is not by itself sufficient evidence to prove a defendant committed the underlying crime." U.S. v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). Though Rule 410 refers to the admissibility of nolo pleas against "the defendant who made the plea" (emphasis added), it protects either party in a civil action from the admission of their prior nolo pleas and resultant convictions.

  9. U.S. v. Pickard

    Case No. 00-40104-01/02-RDR (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2009)   Cited 6 times

    B. Pickard next argues that a recent decision of the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2006), demonstrates that his 1978 nolo contendere plea in California cannot be considered a prior conviction for sentence enhancement purposes under 21 U.S.C. § 841. This argument borders on being frivolous.

  10. State v. Spreadbury

    2011 MT 176 (Mont. 2011)   Cited 9 times
    Providing that "the right to appeal from an adverse pre-plea ruling is waived unless it is specifically reserved"

    Thus, the effect of a no contest plea is to preclude the conviction as evidence of guilt in subsequent proceedings. United States v.Dalvan Nguyen , 465 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); Mont. R. Evid. 410. Permitting a party who does not contest the court's authority to convict and punish him to bring a later proceeding in which he claims his conviction was improper would undermine the finality of plea agreements and "society's `desire to encourage compromise resolution of criminal cases.'" Dalvan Nguyen, 465 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 69 (1st Cir. 1999)).