I dissent from the majority opinion, but I do so most reluctantly. My reluctance stems from the fact that the learned state trial judge, Judge Richette, took great pains to satisfy herself that she could justifiably accept Duffy’s plea.
Although one of the issues raised before us concerns a failure by the trial judge to delineate the various elements of the crimes charged, Judge Weis, writing for the majority, very properly points to the extensive care taken by trial Judge Richette at the plea hearing to explore and expose the State’s evidence, thereby satisfying that aspect of Duffy’s nolo plea. See Maj.Op. at 1060-1061. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the majority that no more need have been done than what Judge Richette did when she heard all the evidence and adjudged Duffy guilty.1
However, I cannot accept as constitutionally valid Judge Richette’s failure to inform Duffy as to the maximum sentence to which he was subject. I am fully aware of the distinction drawn by the majority between the customary guilty plea and the nolo plea accepted in this case under the particular circumstances present. Nonetheless, even though this court has not as yet declared itself with respect to the constitutional requirement for each component of a guilty plea or its counterpart in the taking of a nolo contendere plea, one of the most significant factors in a defendant’s decision to waive his constitutional rights is the extent of punishment, which may be imposed by the trial judge. We have recognized this factor in numerous cases in the context of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, which, of course, applies only where the offender is charged with a federal offense in federal court. Yet the reasoning and logic which led this court to reverse in Roberts v. United States, 491 F.2d 1236 (3d Cir. 1974), and in other plea cases in this Circuit, see Kelsey v. United States, 484 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1973); United States v. Jasper, 481 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1973); Woodward v. United States, 426 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1970); Berry v. United States, 412 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1969), is just as pertinent here.2
A plea of guilty or nolo contendere entails the waiver of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to compulsory process, the right to confront witnesses, the right to have the government prove each element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to present a defense. Due process requires that waivers of constitutional rights be made knowingly and voluntarily. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Thus, a guilty or nolo plea which is not knowing and voluntary, and which thereby does not satisfy the waiver standard of Johnson, violates due process and is consequently void. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). Accord*1066ingly, the Supreme Court has held the voluntary and knowing waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, and the right to confront one’s accusers may not, as a constitutional matter, be presumed from a silent record. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).3 The standard for guilty pleas established in Boykin, in my opinion, applies equally to nolo pleas, inasmuch as nolo pleas involve essentially the same waivers of constitutional rights as do guilty pleas. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970);4 Hunt v. Yeager, 397 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1968) (per curiam). Cf. Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 455, 47 S.Ct. 127, 71 L.Ed. 347 (1926) (nolo plea, like guilty plea, constitutes admission of guilt).
Realistically, in pleading guilty or nolo contendere, a defendant’s primary concern is with the “bottom line”, i.e., the sentence which may be imposed. That being the case, I fail to see how we can avoid holding that, as a constitutional prerequisite to the knowing and voluntary waiver of a defendant’s constitutional rights, he must be informed of the maximum dimensions of the sentence to which he is exposed, and that the court’s instruction in this respect must be express, unambiguous, unequivocal, and must actually appear of record.5 Indeed, in Boykin, the Supreme Court directed that “[w]hat is at stake for an accused facing death or imprisonment demands the utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence." 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. at 1712 (emphasis added). See Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948).6 See also Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). Obviously, the most important consequence in pleading guilty or nolo is the sentence to be imposed. In my opinion, the clear import of Boykin requires an affirmative showing on the record of the maximum sentence to which the defendant may be subject. I do not believe that a plea can be said to be truly voluntary and knowing if the defendant is not so informed by the court.
Other courts have reached the same conclusion. In Wade v. Wainright, 420 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1969), for example, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the trial court’s failure to explain to the defendant the maximum sentence which could be imposed rendered his guilty plea invalid. The court concluded that “there could not be a voluntary relinquishment of the constitutional right to a jury trial by the entry of a plea of guilty by reason of a waiver which was entered into by this state court defendant when he was in total ignorance as to the length of term to which he could be sentenced upon the entry of a plea of guilty.” 420 F.2d at 901. The Ninth Circuit has reached a similar result7 in Yellowwolf v. Morris, 536 F.2d *1067813 (9th Cir. 1976), and United States ex rel. Pebworth v. Conte, 489 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1974).8 See also Bailey v. Macdougall, 392 F.2d 155 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 133, 21 L.Ed.2d 118 (1968) (due process requires that guilty plea not be accepted unless defendant understands its consequences); Coney v. Wyrick, 532 F.2d 94, 99-101 (8th Cir. 1976) (a guilty plea made without full understanding of the consequences will not sustain a conviction).9
Turning to the facts of this case, it is true, as Judge Weis points out in the majority opinion, that the nolo plea here was accepted only after the state trial court judge had heard the state’s witnesses testify under oath in open court, and only after defense counsel had been offered an opportunity to cross-examine each witness. Nonetheless, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the nolo plea in this case was “in effect equivalent to a plea of not guilty rather than guilty.” Maj.Op. at 1064. As I see it, although the plea in this case was not a “full-blown” guilty or nolo plea with the concomitant express, complete waiver of the defendant’s rights, the defendant in this case nevertheless waived significant and important rights. He waived the right to a jury trial, the right to confront his accusers (i.e., cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses), and the right to present a defense. Given these waivers, I believe that it was also constitutionally required that Duffy be informed of the maximum sentence to which he was subject. Absent such information, the waivers inherent in his nolo plea could not have been *1068voluntarily and knowingly made. In this case it seems to me that the trial judge at the very outset of the proceeding, once she had satisfied herself that the defendant was desirous of pleading nolo contendere, and prior to the taking of any evidence, should have informed Duffy of — and should have satisfied herself that Duffy understood— the maximum punishment which he could receive if his plea was accepted.10 At that point the trial judge, if an affirmative and knowing answer had been received, could have proceeded to hear the state’s evidence, and make the determination which she properly made based upon the testimony adduced.
In essence, therefore, I would hold that, even though the taking of a nolo conten-dere plea may sometimes resemble the trial held after a not guilty plea, nevertheless explanation of the maximum sentence to which the defendant is subject is an integral and constitutionally mandated component of the plea proceeding, and must precede the introduction of evidence by the prosecutor. Hence, until the Supreme Court speaks to the contrary, in my opinion such a requirement is a constitutional one, and must be given effect in all plea cases.
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus. I would hold that the district court’s order should be reversed, and that the district court should be directed to issue the writ because of the constitutional deficiency in the taking of Duffy’s nolo plea.
. But see McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 470, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (“There is no adequate substitute for demonstrating in the record at the time the plea is entered the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge against him.” [emphasis in original]). McCarthy, of course, was a Rule II case, and did not purport to set forth constitutional requirements. Moreover, the unique circumstances of this case distinguish it, at least for the purposes of this issue, from the straight guilty plea in McCarthy.
. Under Rule 11, the pleader must be made aware of the outer limits of punishment, including the maximum sentence, Woodward v. United States, 426 F.2d 959, 962 (3d Cir. 1970), ineligibility for parole, Berry v. United States, 412 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1969), and the fact that a mandatory Special Parole Term would attach to any prison sentence, Roberts v. United States, 491 F.2d 1236 (3d Cir. 1974). We have also held that a guilty plea would be vitiated where the pleader was erroneously told he could be exposed to a maximum sentence in excess of that provided by law, United States v. Jasper, 481 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1973); Kelsey v. United States, 484 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1973). In Berry we said: “When one enters a plea of guilty he should be told what is the worst to expect.” 412 F.2d at 192.
The requirements of Rule 11 are, of course, strict ones, and must be fully adhered to and reflected on the record. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 565 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1977).
. Boykin involved an attack on a state court conviction, and therefore laid down constitutional principles.
. The Court stated:
The fact that his plea was denominated a plea of guilty rather than a plea of nolo contendere is of no constitutional significance with respect to the issue now before us, for the Constitution is concerned with the practical consequences, not the formal categorizations, of state law.
400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. at 167.
. As the court in Yellowwolf v. Morris, 536 F.2d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1976) stated, a requirement that knowledge of possible sentences appear on the record “is prophylactic in intent, designed to prevent a prejudicial effect in any case by imposing a more easily reviewable requirement in every case.”
. Justice Black in Von Moltke stated that the waiver of the right to counsel in the course of a guilty plea “[t]o be valid . . must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter.” 332 U.S. at 724, 68 S.Ct. at 323 (emphasis added).
. In United States ex rel. Smith v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp. 1381 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d without opinion, 538 F.2d 322 (3d Cir. 1976), the district court noted that “the importance of assuring that a defendant does not plead guilty except with a full understanding of the charges against him and the possible consequences of his plea was at the heart of’ Boykin. Id. at *10671391. The district court further noted that “[i]t is well settled that prior to the entry of a guilty plea, a defendant should be advised of the consequences of that plea, including the maximum sentence which may be imposed on a plea of guilty.” Id. at 1392. In Smith, even though the state trial court had not advised the defendant of the maximum sentence, the district court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus because the record revealed that the assistant district attorney had informed the defendant that he faced a possible maximum sentence of 60 years. The district court held that "this conversation provided [defendant] with sufficient knowledge of the consequences of his plea to meet the constitutional minimum standard of Boykin.” Id.; accord, United States ex rel. Nikodemski v. Pennsylvania, 320 F.Supp. 1154 (E.D.Pa.1970). In the instant case the record does not reveal any such information imparted to, or knowledge on the part of, Duffy. The fact that Duffy had prior experience with the criminal justice system is no substitute for the constitutional requirement of knowledge of the consequences of a plea. Indeed, to hold that such prior familiarity with the criminal justice process satisfies constitutional mandates, is akin to holding that a defendant, once having been arrested and given Miranda warnings, need not be informed of his Miranda rights on subsequent arrests.
The district court in Smith further held that the fact that the defendant’s actual exposure was 80 years (as opposed to 60 years as stated to the defendant) did not require issuance of the writ, essentially because the district court judge viewed the error as harmless. In the district court’s view the crucial constitutional requirement was that the accused had understood the approximate penalty faced. Accordingly, the district court ruled that constitutional requirements were satisfied in the case (where a 34 year old defendant was informed he faced a 60 year instead of an 80 year maximum prison sentence) because the defendant was aware that he faced a very substantial prison term. 403 F.Supp. at 1393. Even assuming that the district court in Smith was correct in its holding, but cf. United States v. Kelsey, supra; United States v. Jasper, supra, in the instant case the record is completely barren as to inquiries, information, or waiver respecting the maximum sentence authorized by law in the event Duffy’s plea was accepted.
. The Second Circuit apparently has rejected the contention that failure to inform a defendant of the maximum penalty renders a plea constitutionally defective. The Second Circuit requires that the defendant show that he would have acted differently had he been informed of the maximum sentence. Kelleher v. Henderson, 531 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1976); Caputo v. Henderson, 541 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1976). I must respectfully disagree with this concept, and I suggest that the Second Circuit’s position is not one with which this circuit could be comfortable in light of this court’s prior expressions in the Rule 11 context, see note 2 supra.
. In Coney a state court defendant had understood, based on assurances by his own counsel and by the prosecutor, that he would receive concurrent life sentences. The sentencing judge stated he would accept the recommendations, but apparently misunderstood the plea bargain, since he imposed consecutive life sentences. The Eighth Circuit upheld the defendant’s contentions that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary. Accord, Luckman v. Burke, 299 F.Supp. 488 (D.Wis.1969).
. This requirement is by no means a burdensome one. For example, after Duffy’s counsel had persisted in stating that Duffy would plead nolo contendere and after the trial judge had satisfied herself that Duffy understood the purport of such a plea, Judge Richette simply could have stated something to the following effect: You realize that after I hear the State’s evidence, if I am satisfied that you are entering this nolo contendere plea voluntarily and knowingly, and with full understanding of the rights which you are waiving, and if I accept that plea, that you may then be sentenced under the relevant statute to a maximum of............years imprisonment or a fine of $............, or both.