In civil proceedings a defendant may admit to certain facts in the case so as to preclude the admission of any evidence to prove those facts that might be prejudicial to the defendant's case. In criminal cases, on the other hand, the defendant must plead either guilty or not guilty. If the defendant pleads not guilty, there can be no admission to any facts in the case to block the introduction of prejudicial evidence relevant only to proving those facts. The thesis of this article is that the differential treatment of the criminal defendant and the civil defendant on this matter constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the law for criminal defendants. This denial of equal protection should be ended by granting the criminally accused the same right to "plead out" facts in the case as is possessed by civil litigants. This right would enable an accused to shield the jury from highly prejudicial testimony such as evidence of an accused's uncharged crimes that may tempt the jury to decide the case on an improper basis. 302 footnotes