Crime Junkie - PRECEDENT: Henry Alford

Episode Date: December 25, 2023

Sometimes we see our legal system as black or white. Innocent or Guilty. But there is a technical gray area. Room for someone to plead guilty while still maintaining their innocence. And this is only possible because of a precedent set in the case against a man named Henry Alford more than half a century ago.Did you know you can listen to this episode ad-free? Join the Fan Club! Visit https://crimejunkieapp.com/library/ to view the current membership options and policies.Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit: https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/precedent-henry-alford/ Don’t miss out on all things Crime Junkie!Instagram: @crimejunkiepodcast | @audiochuckTwitter: @CrimeJunkiePod | @audiochuckTikTok: @crimejunkiepodcastFacebook: /CrimeJunkiePodcast | /audiochuckllcCrime Junkie is hosted by Ashley Flowers and Brit Prawat. Instagram: @ashleyflowers | @britprawatTwitter: @Ash_Flowers | @britprawatTikTok: @ashleyflowerscrimejunkieFacebook: /AshleyFlowers.AF Text Ashley at [phone] to talk all things true crime, get behind the scenes updates, random photos of Chuck, and more! 

Happy Holidays, crime junkies! I'm your host, Ashley Flowers. And as you can imagine, Britt and I are both taking some much needed time off today to spend with our families. But I have a feeling you know what I'm going to say next. I couldn't break our 2023 trend here, so I'm giving you the last two episodes of my series precedent to wrap up the 10 that we dropped throughout the year. And while this is the end to our series, who knows,

maybe we'll explore new precedent-setting cases in the future. Now every year, hundreds of thousands of people stand accused of crimes in the United States. Some of them are truly guilty of those offenses, and others are not. The judge will ask, how do you plea and the defendant answers, guilty or not guilty?

But in a small number of cases, there is a type of third option, the Alfred plea. When defendants choose an Alfred plea, they are telling the court that they are innocent while at the same time pleading guilty to the crime. And they do this because they recognize that the case against them is overwhelmingly strong and they don't have a solid enough defense to counter. And that is exactly what happened in North Carolina in 1963, sparking a debate that rages

to this day about how exactly justice can be served to a person who claims they are both innocent and guilty at the same time. But before, there was an Alfred plea. There was Henry Alfred. This is his story. On the night of November 22nd, 1963, Henry Alfred was on a date of sorts. He'd been out drinking with friends and picked up a sex worker named Georgia Lee Holder in their hometown in Forsyth County, North Carolina. Around 8 o'clock that night,

Georgia and Henry arrived together at the home of another man, named Nathaniel Young. Nathaniel's house was a place that a lot of people in town hung out, and for a small fee, he would let sex workers regularly use his bedrooms with their clients. A lot of alcohol moved through Nathaniel's house illegally, and it was for a lack of a better description, the fun party house on the block.

Georgia and Henry had a few drinks in the kitchen, then danced in the living room with a few other party goers. Then, they decided to move their party of two to a back bedroom. Again, doing that was going to cost them, so Henry found Nathaniel and handed him a dollar bill as payment for letting them use the bedroom in his house. Nathaniel took the bill and Henry made the comment that the money was his last bit of cash for the night.

Well, Georgia overheard that, and instead of putting herself in a position of getting ripped off, she sat down in a chair next to Nathaniel and refused to go with Henry to the back bedroom. No way was she working without getting paid. Henry tried to convince her to go to the back bedroom with him, but Georgia was a hard no. So he changed tactics. According to HL Pullman's book Constitutional Debate in Action, Criminal Justice, Henry

was like, you came with me and you're going to leave with me. He tried to grab Georgia out of her chair, but Nathaniel stepped in and told Henry to stop making a commotion. Leave Georgia alone and get out of his house. By this time, Henry was raging. He left Nathaniel's house, but on his way out the door, he grabbed George's coat and took it with him. Nathaniel and other party goers tried to chase him down to get the coat back, but Henry got away. About 15 minutes later, there was a knock on the front

door of Nathaniel's house. Nathaniel went over to ask who it was, but the person on the other side of the door was muffled and impossible to hear. So Nathaniel just instinctively swung the door open. And when he did, there was a loud gunshot blast, and Nathaniel crumpled to the floor. He'd been shot once in the heart and was dead almost immediately. People scrambled outside to see who'd fired the shot, but the gunman was already gone. Whoever they were, they were protected by the darkness of the night. When police arrived on scene a half hour later, witnesses started pointing the finger at Henry

Alford. After the fight with Nathaniel, he was a good suspect so officers headed out to find him. When they arrived to his place they didn't find Henry. Instead they were greeted by his longtime girlfriend a woman named Ruby and O did Ruby have a story to tell them. She told police Henry had left that night just as the sun was going down, saying he'd be back in a few minutes. It was a few hours before he returned, and when he did, he stormed in all out of breath, ranting and raving about how these guys chased him out of a party and how he was going to

go back and kill them. When she asked him who he was talking about, he said, Nathaniel Young. Ruby said she tried to talk him out of it, but Henry wouldn't listen. He just took his shotgun out of their wardrobe, packed four shells, and ran out the front door. Ruby told detectives that Henry returned home about 30 minutes later and said, quote,

honey, I done killed that Nathaniel, and I'm going to leave you with the furniture. I killed that god, son of a b***h,' end quote." But he doesn't just tell Ruby he killed this man. He also tells her, how, quote, "'I went to the door, and when I shot him, he just turned his head around and fell to the floor." Police spoke to two other witnesses that night.

The first was George Lee who filled the police in on the events of that evening, what happened before the murder. And there was the couple who lived just next door to Nathaniel, who said they'd seen Henry armed with a shotgun walking in the direction of Nathaniel's place right before the shooting. I mean, at this point, they've got to be thinking, who else? It was practically open and shut. Police caught up to Henry at one o'clock in the morning on November 23rd and arrested him

for the murder of Nathaniel Young. Within 10 days, he was officially charged with first degree murder. At the time, that charge carried a possible life sentence or the death penalty. Even though there were no witnesses to the actual murder, the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed squarely at Henry. The state's strongest pieces of evidence against Henry were those three witness statements from Ruby, Nathaniel's neighbor, and George Ali. George's statement provided the motive. Ruby's provided intent, and the neighbors who saw Henry carrying the gun on the way to Nathaniel's house,

that's the means. And it's probably clear, based on the story so far, that Henry Alfred was no angel. According to trial transcripts published by Cornell Law School, he had a lengthy criminal record that included another murder conviction for which he served six years of a 10-year sentence. He'd also been convicted nine times for committing armed robberies,

forgery, transporting stolen goods, and carrying a concealed weapon. But here is the twist. Henry insisted he was innocent. The problem was, according to several law publications on this case, the fact that Henry was black and the case against him was so strong, those things almost guaranteed that a jury would find him guilty. Not only that, but they'd likely recommend the death penalty. The potential jury pool in Forsyth County in the 1960s would have been made up of mostly

white people. Despite his insistence that he was innocent, it was slim to none that Henry would be coming out of a murder trial with an acquittal or even a recommendation of a life in prison punishment. He had two options really. Plead guilty and be sentenced to life in prison for a crime he says he didn't commit, or plead not guilty and roll the dice on a jury trial, one that is likely to end in a death sentence. Neither is a good option.

So Henry and his court appointed lawyer, a guy named Fred Crumpler, did something that had never been done before. He looked behind door number 3. Henry Alfred knew the case against him was airtight. He knew the evidence and testimony against him looked really bad. But his position never wavered. He was innocent. Over and over, he told his lawyer, I didn't kill anyone.

The state of North Carolina offered Henry a plea deal. They said plea guilty to second-degree murder. And they guarantee he'd avoid the death penalty and only face a maximum of 30 years in prison. On December 10, 1963, knowing that there was no better option and on the advice of his lawyer, Henry took the deal. At this plea hearing, the prosecution expected Henry to admit his guilt and consent to the terms of the plea deal, easy, straightforward.

But that's not what happened. Instead, when he stood to address the judge in court, he said that he was innocent of the crime, but felt the state had left him with no other option than to plead guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty. According to the Delaware Gazette, Henry said, quote, I pleaded guilty on second-degree murder because they said there is too much evidence, but I ain't shot no man. But I take the fault for the other man. I'm still pleading that you all got me to plead guilty. You told me to plead guilty,

right? I'm not guilty, but I plead guilty. I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn't, they would gas me for it and that is all." Before accepting his plea, the judge wanted to make sure that Henry's lawyer, Fred, had adequately explained the difference between first degree and second degree murder. Henry said, yes, he'd been informed and yes, he understood the difference. He also told the judge that his lawyer had clearly explained he'd likely be convicted of first degree murder if he opted for a jury trial.

The judge accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Henry to 30 years in a North Carolina prison, the maximum punishment for second-degree murder at the time. But that's not where Henry's story ends. Henry and his lawyer appealed that sentence and argue that because Henry had been so fearful of being put to death that he felt he had no other choice than to plead guilty even though he wasn't. That fear made his plea in voluntary. The State Appellate Court didn't buy the argument. They ruled that his guilty plea was entirely voluntary.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit of North Carolina reviewed that ruling and ended up overturning it. They agreed that a plea made from a place of fear isn't voluntary. So the case moved on to the US Supreme Court, which had the final say on whether or not the guilty plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. The questions they had to consider were one. Did Henry understand what he was doing and what constitutional rights he was giving up when he pled guilty to secondary murder?

And two, did his lawyer inform him adequately and intelligently? In the end, Supreme Court justices ruled in a landmark 6-3 vote against Henry Alfred. They said that Henry was not coerced into entering his guilty plea. It was his own decision that he had weighed his options and chosen the one that made the most sense for him, the one that was in his best interest. This is a case where Henry and his lawyer lost the battle, but won the war. Because the justice's decision meant that even if a defendant proclaims innocence, a guilty plea is legitimate. As long as the defendant's decision is in their best interest,

and the record strongly indicates that they are, in fact, guilty of a crime. Now, a lot of you may be asking, how is an Alfred plea different from just pleading guilty to a crime and taking the punishment that the state says they'll give you? Or maybe you're wondering, what is the difference between an Alfred plea and a no contest plea? Well, I was wondering that too.

Both Alfred and no contest please have the same end result, a criminal conviction for the defendant. The biggest difference is that an Alfred Ply is still a guilty plea, but a no contest plea is not, though it basically acts like one in the sentencing phase. A person who enters an Alfred Ply admits guilt to a crime on paper because there is overwhelming evidence that a prosecution could likely use to convince a judge or jury to convict them. But, they don't verbally admit that they are guilty in a court proceeding. A person who enters a no contest plea never admits guilt on paper, but they do agree

verbally in court proceedings to accept punishment for a crime. According to LawCall.com, the main purpose of pleading no contest to a crime is to avoid being civilly liable for confessing to a crime. For example, if you hit and kill someone with your car while intoxicated and you plead guilty or are found guilty by a jury, then the family of the person you killed can sue you in civil court. If you enter a no contest plea to the charges, you avoid being held viable in civil court because the victim's family cannot use your no contest plea

as an admission of guilt in a civil proceeding. An Alfred plea doesn't provide that protection. It doesn't protect you from being sued in civil court. According to Justia Law, Alfred Ples and no contest please are arranged ahead of time between the prosecutors and the judges. You can't just decide for yourself on a whim that that's what you will enter in court. And they don't just happen randomly. A lot of discussion goes on between a judge in a case and the prosecution before anything is even presented to a defendant.

According to an article by Charles Montaldo for Thoughtco, after an Alfred plea is entered, a judge pronounces the defendant guilty right away and imposes a sentence. In some states though, because of pre-arrangements on all sides which includes the defendant admitting to the sufficient facts, when the plea is entered, the typical result is that a case is continued or even later dismissed. One of the most publicized cases involving Alfred Ples in recent history is the infamous case of the West Memphis 3. In May 1993, three eight-year-old boys were found nude, hog tied with their own shoelaces,

and murdered in a muddy drainage canal in the town of West Memphis, Arkansas. Not long after the crime was discovered, three teenage boys named Damien Eccles, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Miss Kelly, Jr. were arrested for the crime. After several hours of intense police interrogation, Jesse confessed to the murders and told police that his friends Jason and Damien were involved too. Jesse went on to recant his confession and the other two suspects also continued to profess their innocence. But by that point, it was too late. The media and the public were outraged, and witnesses had come forward to police claiming that the three teens were involved in a satanic cult that compelled them to commit the horrific

slangs. According to reporting by Campbell Robertson for the New York Times, all three defendants were found guilty in 1994, but only Damien, who was dubbed the trio's ringleader, was sentenced to death. Jason and Jesse were sentenced to life in prison. For the rest of the 90s, and all the way up until 2007, the three men served their time in prison, and Damien awaited execution.

But in 2007, his lawyers initiated new forensic testing on DNA from the crime scene, and the results were shocking. Nowhere on any of the three victims' bodies, or the shoelaces used to tie them up, was they're a single trace of DNA from Damien, Jason, or Jesse? Could they have been involved in mutilating and murdering the young boys without leaving a single hair or skin cell behind at the crime scene? Especially when you think about how the victims were tied up with their own shoelaces. With that scientific proof in hand, that pointed away from the teenagers being involved, the

defense lawyers for all three men asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to consider giving their clients a hearing for a new trial. The court ruled in late 2010 to vacate all three men's convictions for the first degree capital murder in order that they get new trials. The defense lawyers knew that they had a strong case, but even after a decade and a half, even with DNA evidence pointing in another direction, a jury might still find the three guilty. Small towns have long memories, even longer when it comes to crimes against children. What if a new trial resulted in a hungary? That would only further delay

the proceedings and keep the men in prison even longer. Prosecutors for the State of Arkansas had their own concerns about going to trial. They had to consider the possibility of an outright acquittal. After nearly two decades, physical evidence in the case had deteriorated, and witnesses that testified the first time around were now dead. The airtight case from 1993 had a lot of holes by 2010. So the state decided not to take the men to trial a second time, but only if they all agreed to take Alfred Ples. The deal was mutually beneficial for both sides.

Arkansas prosecutors would still secure three guilty convictions, and Damien, Jason, and Jesse would be guaranteed freedom from prison immediately. In 2011, in their best interest and knowing it would get them out of prison right away, each of the defendants entered Alfred Ples. In front of packed courtrooms, they each proclaimed their innocence while at the same time pleading guilty on paper to the murders, agreeing that the state had enough sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. Because Damien, Jason, and Jesse had already spent nearly two decades

in prison, the judge sentenced them to time served, and they walked out of the courtroom as free men. They are, according to the state of Arkansas, convicted killers. They will never have a shot at being exonerated of the crime until DNA or forensic evidence can conclusively identify the perpetrator responsible for the young boy's murder is not one of them. The story of the West Memphis 3 is very different than that of Henry Alfred. Every defendant's case is different, which is why when it comes to plea bargains, a person has to carefully consider their options and make an informed decision in their own best interest.

The options may include an Alfred plea, or they may not. HG Legal Resources reported that there are only three US states that don't allow defendants to take an Alfred plea. That's Michigan, New Jersey, and oh, hi there, Indiana. Henry Alford died in prison in 1975 after serving 22 years of his 30-year sentence. He was 57 years old. When he stood in that North Carolina courtroom in 1963 and said, I ain't shot no man.

You told me to plead guilty. Henry had no way of knowing how his words would transform the criminal justice system in America. But something tells me, even if he had, he wouldn't have changed a thing. But that's not always how it goes. Sometimes an idea, even one born out of the very best intentions, balloons over time, into something no one could have ever imagined. Something even the ideas most vocal advocates would change if they could.

In our next and final episode of this precedent series, I'm going to tell you about another case that has completely transformed our system. But this one starts right at the beginning from when a crime is first reported. You can listen to that right now. To find all the source material for this episode, you can go to our website, crimejunkiepodcast.com. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at crimejunkiepodcast and we'll be back on Monday with a regularly scheduled episode. 1 ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ ھ Crime junkie is an audio chuck production. So what do you think Chuck?

Do you approve? Bye!