Over time, lawyers get to hear defendants, as well as other lawyers, enter a plea to charges in an open courtroom.   The initial plea is always “not guilty,” though this seems to be a shock to the media which reports the plea as if it could possibly be something else, a serious piece of journalism.  Other people are often surprised by this as well, as if a guilty person is supposed to announce to the world at his initial plea that he is, indubitably, guilty.

In some courts, the lawyer enters the plea for the defendant.  Sometimes, a judge will do it on the defendant’s behalf.  Most of the time, the defendant gets to speak the words for himself.  This is probably the only time the defendant will be expected to speak in open court unless he changes his plea later.

The manner of announcing a plea has long been a subject of debate.  It’s a formality, but when it’s the only chance a defendant has to say something to the judge, some want to seize the opportunity and embellish it a tad.  Far and away, the most common language is limited to the two basic words, “not guilty.”  Clean, clear and to the point. 

When the lawyer enters the plea for the defendant, there’s a greater chance that the lawyer will throw in something to show the client that he’s getting value for his money.  Usually, it includes some grandiose claim, whether involving the Constitution, outrage at the injustice of the prosecution or how they can’t wait for trial to prove the defendant’s innocence.  Such embellishments are often used to provide the media with a better story than a mere “not guilty.”

I’ve often wondered which path was best, or whether it mattered at all, when entering a plea.  There is now an answer to my question, courtesy of United States District Judge Samuel Kent.  From Above the Law :

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent stood before a fellow federal judge this morning and vehemently proclaimed his innocence of three federal sexual crimes in his indictment.

“I plead absolutely, unequivocally not guilty and look very much forward to a trial on the merits of what I consider flagrant, scurrilous charges,” Kent stated with force to U.S. 5th Circuit Judge Edward Prado.

“For the record I absolutely intend to testify, and we are going to bring a horde of witnesses,” Kent said.

Now if this is the way a plea is handled by a sitting federal judge, you’ve got to figure he knows what he’s doing.  He’s been there, heard that.  He knows what shenanigans worked when he was sitting on the big bench rather than the trench, and he probably thought long and hard about what exactly he would say when his moment came.

Now we all realize that pleading “absolutely, unequivocally” is substantively no different from just plain pleading.  But Judge Kent (who is still a sitting judge, hearing other cases while his indictment pends) apparently knows that a few additional words, turning an ordinary plea into a vehement one, can make all the difference.  And I’m sure the media presence in the room had nothing to do with it.

I do, however, question whether the “horde of witnesses” was a good choice of words.  Horde?  It could have been easily misunderstood.

Does this mean a simple, elegant plea of “not guilty” is a thing of the past?