THE MAJORITY OF DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS PLEAD GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE. NOLO CONTENDERE IS TYPICALLY TREATED BY THE COURTS AS A GUILTY PLEA, THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT NOLO CONTENDERE MAY NOT BE INTRODUCED AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL SUIT. UNDER AMENDED RULES, FEDERAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANTS FULLY UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY OR A NOLO CONTENDERE PLEA. THE REQUIRED JUDICIAL ADVICE TO DEFENDANTS IS LISTED IN THE APPENDIX. NOLO CONTENDERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AND IS OCCASIONALLY REJECTED. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT APROXIMATELY 65 PERCENT OF ALL CASES REACHING FEDERAL COURTS INVOLVE PLEA BARGAINING. IN THE PAST, PLEA BARGAINING WAS DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT JUDGES WOULD REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING. UNDER THE NEW RULES, IT NOW APPEARS THAT JUDGES MAY PARTICIPATE IN WHATEVER DISCUSSIONS OCCUR AFTER THE PLEA AGREEMENT IS DISCLOSED. UNDER THE AMENDED RULES ALL PLEA BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MUST BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL COURT RECORD. HOWEVER, COURTS ARE NOT BOUND BY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PROSECUTING AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. IN CASES OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, PLEA AGREEMENTS APPROVED IN ONE DISTRICT MUST BE UPHELD IN ANOTHER. IF THE COURT DECIDES TO REJECT A PLEA AGREEMENT, IT MUST TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS: (1) INFORM THE PARTIES, (2) ADVISE THE DEFENDANT IN OPEN COURT OR OTHERWISE THAT THE COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, (3) AFFORD THE DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE ORIGINAL PLEA, AND (4) ADVISE THE DEFENDANT THAT IF HE OR SHE PERSISTS IN HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE, THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE MAY BE LESS FAVORABLE THAN THAT CONTEMPLATED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT. NO REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.