The Alford plea differs slightly from the nolo contendere ("no contest") plea. An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea. Therefore, a defendant's prior conviction via an Alford plea can be considered in future trials; and it will count as a "strike" if a three strikes law applies. On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt, and it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility. However, courts do not have to accept a plea of nolo contendere, and this plea is not permitted in some states. (wikipedia)



From Expertslaw:
What's the difference between an Alford plea and a Nolo Contedere?

For an Alford Plea, the defendant does not admit the criminal act charged and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists such that the prosecution can probably convince a judge or jury to find him guilty.

For a "nolo contendere" ("no contest") plea, the defendant concedes the charges alleged without disputing or admitting guilt and without offering a defense.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40904

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2009-02-17 01:45:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Isso já foi respondido antes: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_portuguese/law_patents/...