In the 1970 case North Carolina v. Alford, Henry Alford was indicted for first-degree murder. Despite maintaining his innocence, he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in order to avoid a possible death sentence if tried by jury. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a plea of guilty could be accepted when it was accompanied by protestations of innocence and only made due to fear of the death penalty. In its decision, the court held that an individual can voluntarily and knowingly plead guilty even while claiming they are innocent as long as there is strong factual evidence indicating guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This ruling established what has come to be known as an "Alford Plea," where defendants maintain their innocence but acknowledge that the prosecution's evidence would likely lead to their conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for North Carolina v. Alford, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling that a defendant could plead guilty while still maintaining their innocence. He argued that such pleas undermine the integrity of criminal trials and are inconsistent with the principle that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, he contended this practice allows courts to accept convictions despite significant doubts about their accuracy, which may lead to innocent people being convicted. He also expressed concern over potential coercion in plea bargaining situations where defendants might feel pressured into pleading guilty out of fear of harsher punishment if they go to trial and lose. In his view, accepting these types of pleas is not only constitutionally questionable but also undermines public confidence in the justice system.