The question of the extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been the subject of an action. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research.  She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was presented with evidence of guilt and offered the choice between reviewing an academic ethics committee and perhaps a great deal of punishment with respect to additional courses and other effect, or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence.” The study showed that, as predicted in the court statistics, about 90% of the accused, who were actually guilty, decided to enter a plea and plead guilty. It also noted that about 56% of those who were truly innocent (and who knew him in private) also make their pleas and plead guilty for reasons such as prevention of formal judicial proceedings, insecurity, the possibility of significant damage to future personal projects or the withdrawal of the domestic environment due to remediation courses. The authors stated: Prosecutors, especially local prosecutors, may agree that many of these collateral consequences are unfair and can work together to avoid them.
(Many results of federal law and federal lawyers may feel compelled to keep them.) For example, a conspiracy to possess a drug plea may carry the same sentence as a simple possession plea, but not the same consequences of suspension and revocation. Check your local and federal statutes to explore such arguments. To our knowledge, the defendant`s decision to enter into this agreement is an informed and voluntary decision. 19. If the defendant fails to meet his obligations under this fundamental agreement and the matter continues in court, the defendant accepts that all statements he makes or associate with them in the context of this appeal agreement, including, but not limited to, the declaration of imzitus made under this fundamental contract of appeal and statements made by the defendant during the debriefing proceedings, are admissible when made by the government in a preliminary proceeding and/or during which they may be used for purposes.