Should the law and lawyers casually say "plea of guilty" and "plea of innocent"?

[Joe Carillo]

Question by Atty. Danny Valdez (August 29, 2009):

We lawyers casually say, “plea of guilty.” The law (at least Sec. 27 of the Rules on Evidence) even uses the phrase. If that were correct, then there must also be a “plea of innocent.” Shouldn’t it be a “plea of guilt” instead?
 
The frequently used adjective “most sought-after” is derived from the verb “seek,” which is transitive. What then is the reason behind the use of the word “after”?

Dear Danny:

What people say casually isn’t always grammatically correct, and the casual language of lawyers is no exception. The phrase “plea of guilty,” which is of the form “noun + of + adjective," is definitely bad grammar; it’s as grammatically wrong and ill-advised as “offer of lovely,” “statement of ugly,” or “demand of nasty.” The correct form for such phrases is, as you correctly surmise, “noun + of + noun,” as in “plea of guilt” and its polar opposite, “plea of innocence.” (To belabor the point, the correct construction of my three wrong-usage examples is “lovely offer,” “ugly statement,” and “nasty demand,” respectively.)

                      IMAGE CREDIT: JSCHEEPERS777.WORDPRESS.COM

You can say “Plead guilty” but not “Make a plea of guilty”!

But as you say, the rules of grammar had not stopped lawyers from using “plea of guilty” casually and from even enshrining it in the Rules of Evidence. There ought to be a law against such grammar misuse, and it better be enacted fast before some trigger-happy compañeros of yours start casually using “plea of innocent” and—Lady Justice forbid!— think of enshrining it in the Rules of Evidence as well.

The adjectival phrase “most sought-after” is a phrasal verb or verb phrase, which is an expression that consists of a verb or adverb that ends in a preposition. The transitivity or intransitivity of the verb actually has got nothing to do with the form of such phrases and the preposition they end with. Indeed, a phrasal verb or verb phrase often doesn’t have an overt grammar logic; it just becomes entrenched in the language through repeated use, in much the same way as “plea of guilty” had become entrenched in lawyers’ circles. The problem with language, in fact, is that even wrong grammar or wrong usage gets legitimized by repeated use—very much like a lie becoming truth in the mind of the clueless or naive through sheer repetition.

[maxsims]

"...The phrase “plea of guilty,” which is of the form “noun + of + adjective, is definitely bad grammar;..."

Is it?

The judge asks,  "How does your client plead?"
The lawyer replies, "He pleads 'Guilty', your Honour."
The court reporter then writes, "The accused entered a plea of guilty.  (Perhaps it would be more grammatically accurate if he wrote, "The accused entered a plea of "guilty".  Either way, the word as used is an adverb, not an adjective.

[Joe Carillo]

I have to disagree with you on both counts, Max. The word "guilty" is a true-blooded adjective, not an adverb; the adverb form of "guilty" is, of course, "guiltily." In fact, "guilty" is functioning in that sentence as an adjective complement, not as an adverb. The verb "is" in that sentence is simply a linking verb and isn't being modified by the word "guilty"; adverbs, you will recall, modify only action verbs--never linking verbs--and adjectives. (It's somewhat of a stretch, but some people sometimes mistake the "-ty" ending with the "-ly" ending of some adverbs; this might explain why they think of "guilty" as an adverb.)

On the other hand, in the sentence "The accused entered a plea of "guilty," the word "guilty" isn't an adverb either but an adjective. As a whole, however, the phrase "a plea of guilty" is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "entered."

You're absolutely right, though, that the quotation marks setting off "guilty" in the sentence "The accused entered a plea of 'guilty'" makes its usage in that written form correct. In spoken form, however, the grammatical distinction created by the quotation marks is lost. The grammar-savvy lawyer would then be constrained to recast the spoken sentence to something like "The accused pleads guilty, Your Honor." This time, "guilty" is functioning as an adjective complement--not an adverb--of the intransitive verb "plead."           

[maxsims]

Me:  "...Either way, the word as used is an adverb, not an adjective..."

Joe:  "...The word "guilty" is a true-blooded adjective, not an adverb..."

You are quite right, Joe.   Sorry.   I can't imagine what i was thinking.

But how do you determine "a plea of guilty" to be an adverbial phrase?

[Joe Carillo]

This is how I determined “a plea of guilty” to be an adverbial phrase:

By definition, a modifier is a word or phrase that makes specific the meaning of another word or phrase. In the sentence “The accused entered a plea of ‘guilty’,” the phrase “a plea of ‘guilty” as a whole functions as a modifier of the verb “entered.” In this sense, “a plea of ‘guilty” is therefore an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “entered.”

Of course, in that same sentence, the noun “plea” alone is the direct object of the verb “entered,” and the phrase “of ‘guilty’” is an adjectival phrase modifying “plea.” Together, though, they function as an adverbial modifier since they are modifying a verb--the verb “entered.”

[maudionisio]

Question by Atty. Danny Valdez (August 29, 2009):

We lawyers casually say, “plea of guilty.” The law (at least Sec. 27 of the Rules on Evidence) even uses the phrase. If that were correct, then there must also be a “plea of innocent.” Shouldn’t it be a “plea of guilt” instead?

Lawyers must remember that the present Rules on Evidence is based on the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Philippine Commission (American-dominated legislature) during the US colonial administration sometime in 1901 or 1902. That law in turn was based on American laws passed during the 19th Century or some 200 years ago. Most of the terms and phrases in the Rules of Evidence and the rest of the present Rules of Court have not changed much since the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure were passed more than 100 years ago. The phrase “plea of guilty” and other similar legal terms could have been gramatically correct 200 years ago. Therefore we cannot analyze terms and phrases copied from 19th Century laws based on today's English grammar. For the reference of lawyers, today's Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rules on Civil Procedure are based on the 1964 Rules on Court, which in turn were based on the 1940 Rules of Court.

The 1940 Rules of Court were based on the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure.

[writegirl]

^So, do you think we should edit the laws? 

[maudionisio]

That's up to the Supreme Court. But it has not veered away from the language of the over 100-year-old Code of Criminal Procedure and Coce of Civil Procedure in amending the 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court.

[hill roberts]

Can we say, "The guilty plea has been handed down to Mr...."
"She has been remanded in custody after the guilty plea was handed down.." or "
"She was remanded in custody after the guilty plea has been handed down..." or,
"She was remanded in custody after the guilty plea had been handed down..."

[Joe Carillo]

Can we say, "The guilty plea has been handed down to Mr...."
"She has been remanded in custody after the guilty plea was handed down.." or "
"She was remanded in custody after the guilty plea has been handed down..." or,
"She was remanded in custody after the guilty plea had been handed down..."

Saying "The guilty plea has been handed down to X" is semantically wrong; the verb "plea" should be "verdict" instead. Even if grammatically corrected that way, though, the statement is awkward: "The guilty verdict has been handed down to X." Statements using the verb phrase "handing down" are much more appropriate if attributed to the doer rather than the receiver of the action, as in "The guilty verdict has been handed down by Judge Smith."

To be semantically and logically correct, your three other examples of sentences should use "guilty verdict" instead of "guilty plea." Using "guilty plea" could be used only in such sentences from the standpoint of the convicted person, as in "She was remanded in custody after entering a guilty plea."    

[jonathanfvaldez]

I believe the proper term is to "amend" (as opposed to "edit") the laws.  And amending the laws is not solely up to the Supreme Court (which has the authority to amend procedural rules like those in the Rules of Court that it implements); by and large, the Congress has the authority to amend substantive rules like those in the Family Code, Penal Code, etc.).

[maudionisio]

Jonathanfvaldez: Writegirl was referring to the Rules on Criminal Procedure when she asked whether “the laws should be edited.” Precisely she meant “amend” when said “edit” and  the  Rules when she said “laws.” Therefore it was up to the Supreme Court to amend the Rules,not the Congress.

[jonathanfvaldez]

maudionisio: I'm glad that you knew precisely what she meant despite her using "edit" instead of "amend."

[maudionisio]

Joanthanfvaldez: Yes, I knew exactly what Writegirl meant because she was reacting to an item I had posted on Sept. 13, 2009.

[jonathanfvaldez]

just for my edification, would you agree that the proper term is "amend"?