THE ANALYSIS FOCUSES ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: THE LEGITIMACY OF CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE GUILTY PLEA OFFER IS MADE AND ACCEPTED; THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN NORMAL PRESSURES OF SELF-INTEREST AND INTOLERABLE INDUCEMENTS THAT DEPRIVE THE GUILTY PLEA CHOICE OF ITS VOLUNTARY CHARACTER; THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE FACTUALLY ACCURATE; APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS FOR PRECLUDING THE CONVICTION OF INNOCENT PARTIES; AND REVOCATION OF THE PLEA BY THE UNILATERAL CHOICE OF THE DEFENDANT. THE COURTS AND 'MODEL MAKERS' (AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS, AND NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS), ALTHOUGH IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT MANY OF THE ASPECTS OF THE GUILTY PLEA, HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GUILTY PLEA AND PERHAPS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL, COHERENT DOCTRINE. IT APPEARS THAT THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF A CRIMINAL CASE MUST BE FIRMLY ACCEPTED AS A RESPECTABLE CONCLUSION OF PROSECUTION. ATTENTION SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON ASSURING LEGAL REGULARITY IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. JUDGMENT BY PLEA, WHEN PROPERLY SUPERVISED, NEED NOT BE INFERIOR TO JUDGMENT BY VERDICT. BECAUSE NOT ALL TERMS OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION AND BECAUSE NOT ALL MEANS OF PERSUASION ARE APPROPRIATE TO BARGAINING, STANDARDS ARE NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEEMED IMPROPER AS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE PLEA. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES TO FULL DISCLOSURE AT THE PREPLEADING CONFERENCES SHOULD BE ARTICULATED. DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE PARTICIPATION OF A JUDGE IN THE BARGAINING PROCESS. SOME RELATION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS TO WHICH IT RESPONDS. COURTS SHOULD ALLOW THE UNILATERAL CANCELLATION OF THE PLEA IN ANY CASE IN WHICH SOME FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT OF THE PROPER PLEA IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN IGNORED, MISUNDERSTOOD, OR PERVERTED.