After the introduction of a conviction or a Nolo candidate, or after a conviction for not guilty confession, counsel for the defendant may seek permission from the defendant to plead for the guilty or candidate Nolo in respect of other crimes committed in the jurisdiction of the coordinating courts of that government. After written agreement from the prosecutor of the government unit in which these crimes could be charged or charged, the accused should be allowed to file the application (subject to the court`s discretion to refuse a Nolo-candidate plea). The registration of such a plea constitutes a waiver of judicial jurisdiction, as well as crimes committed in other government units of the government; and formal charges, with respect to crimes not yet charged. (c) Defence counsel should enter into a contract of appeal only with the defendant`s consent and ensure that the decision to make an admission of guilt or candidate Nolo is ultimately made by the defendant. 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: b) If the court has doubts as to whether the defendant understands his rights and other cases whose notification must be submitted in accordance with this standard, the defendant should be asked to repeat to the Court, in his own words, the information relating to those rights and other cases. , or the court should take other steps that may be necessary to ensure that the admission of guilt is recorded with full understanding of the consequences.