Nolo Contendere

In the American legal system a "Nolo contendere” is a Latin term meaning "I will not contest" the charges. This is a plea made by a defendant to a criminal charge, allowing the judge to then find him/her guilty. It has the same effect as a plea of guilty, as far as the criminal sentence is concerned, but may not be considered as an admission of guilt for any other purpose.

Nolo contendere pleas may also be entered by a defendant in traffic cases. A plea of nolo contendere does not expressly admit guilt but authorizes a court to treat you as if you were guilty, but as said above, only in the American legal system.

In the Israeli legal system (common law) regarding criminal or traffic cases only, one does not have to contest the charge. Any criminal or traffic case begins in court with the famous question given by the Judge to the accused: "Do you admit to the facts?" "Do you admit to being guilty as charged?” The accused may admit to the facts but still deny having committed the crime.

To clarify this, I will present a true case from the traffic courts in Israel. Please note that a traffic case is considered a criminal procedure in Israel.

The Safety Belt Case

Mr. Doe was driving his old private vehicle as he has done for the last 20 years, when a policeman signaled him to stop for a regular license check. When he was stopped, Mr. Doe was wearing his seat belt, which was properly closed. But not properly used. Mr. Doe felt uncomfortable wearing a seat belt so he used a clothes pin to stop the seat belt from working properly. A seat belt is a device that hugs the belt to the chest of the driver. By using the clothes pin to stop the seat belt from properly hugging his chest, the seat belt was too loose on his chest. In the case of an accident the seat belt would not stop Mr. Doe from being thrown against the windshield. The policeman noticed the use of the clothes pin on the seat belt and as a result wrote him a ticket.

If Mr. Doe had paid the fine of a few hundred shekels, he would have accumulated points on his license ("shitat a nikud") and that would have been the end of the story. Mr. Doe chose to go to court and plead not guilty because in his opinion he was wearing his seat belt, as opposed to the statement on his ticket that he was driving without a seat belt.

The Judge asked Mr. Doe at the pretrial ("akra`a" - the reading of the indictment) if the facts presented were correct. Mr. Doe replied in the negative. The Judge then asked Mr. Doe if he was guilty of driving without a seat belt. Mr. Doe again replied in the negative. Now the Judge was confused and asked Mr. Doe if he clearly understood the questions. If yes, did he understand the implications of his answers, meaning the case would have to go to the next stage: a trial with the policeman as a witness.

It took nearly a year for the next hearing to take place. At this time, as in the past, Mr. Doe was not represented by a lawyer. As we discovered later, he never even consulted a lawyer as to the implications of his case.

After hearing both the policeman and Mr. Doe, the Judge tried to be fair and suggest to Mr. Doe that it was in his best interest to plead guilty and pay the fine. Mr. Doe refused, basing his defense on the semantics of the charge: "driving without a seatbelt". Mr. Doe did not understand that the interpretation of the law is done by precedent. There had already been a few precedents in which it was defined that if there is any obstruction to the regular use of the device, then it is considered as if the device is not in use.

Conclusion: Mr. Doe was found guilty, fined for 1500 shekels and had his license suspended for three months, in addition to his accumulated traffic points.

A word of wisdom:

A traffic court room is not the place to dwell on semantics or "smart Alec" defenses. In a traffic court you can ask for understanding or even mercy from the Judge. There are even Judges who will soften the punishment if you do admit your guilt and shorten the court process, which saves time and money for the system.

Sincerely,
 

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law