I get together every so often with a criminal defense attorney friend to discuss the state of the law in Washington. As I live in the real estate world, I am always anxious to hear how the criminal system is really working. At our last meeting my friend noted a disturbing societal tendency. When casual acquaintances discover his line of work, they often cite the criminal case du jour and ask how someone so Ôobviously guilty’ could have the audacity to Ôplead innocent’ and the nerve to lie to the court by claiming innocence.

My friend asked me to pay attention to the newspaper, radio and television reports for several weeks to see how often the press refers to a criminal defendant as “pleading innocent.” I was shocked and dismayed by what I heard. From my anecdotal observations, the words “pleaded not guilty” are quickly dropping from use. This is troubling on several fronts.

First, there is the issue of semantics. People don’t plead innocent in this state because there is no such plea. They plead guilty or not guilty. I disregard the Alford Plea for purposes of this discussion.

We also have a presumption of innocence. Until that jury has reached a verdict, one is presumed innocent. Thus, one doesn’t plead innocent, one is innocent until a jury of one’s peers or judge reaches a different verdict.

In 1215 King John signed the Magna Carta, a pivotal document that limited the King’s power. It was only the threat of overthrow that finally convinced the King to cede some of his power. Over time the Magna Carta was interpreted to have guaranteed the right to a trial by a jury made up of one’s peers. This hard-fought right passed from English law to American law. In order to trigger the right to a jury trial, one must plead not guilty. Entering a plea of not guilty is neither testifying nor lying under oath, it is not even a claim of innocence. It is the trigger used to demand a jury trial under our law.

Even if the facts appear to be incontrovertible, a criminal defendant may still want a trial for a number of reasons. One is the possibility of mitigating circumstances that can only come out when witnesses are called to testify. Those mitigating circumstances may influence the jury to find the defendant guilty of some lesser included crime than originally charged.

Another reason might be that the witness’ trial testimony may give judges a reason to impose a lighter sentence than they would by just reading the guilty pleas and not hearing from witnesses under oath. Sometimes of course, defendants simply think their attorneys can perform miracles and obtain a not guilty verdict.

It puzzles me that we accept the daily use of “pleading innocent.” I’ve been chided that I am too afraid of the slippery slope when it comes to our legal rights. It’s probably true, but I’m glad it is, especially as DNA tests continue to find that some of those formerly “obviously guilty” are innocent of the charges for which they were imprisoned.

The misunderstanding about “innocent pleas” is widespread throughout our state. Sometimes things become as you say they are and it behooves us all to remember that you cannot “plead innocent”--you are innocent until proven otherwise. Pleas are just pleas, not exclamations of innocence. Keep this in mind. Someday you might need your rights. n