AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BASIC PROCESSES AND STRUCTURES OF CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES A FOUNDATION FOR UNDERSTANDING THE STUDY COURT'S ORGANIZATION, CHARACTERIZES THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL LAW, AND POINTS OUT THE RITUAL ROLE AND BASIC AUTONOMY OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. THE CASELOAD PROBLEM AND PLEA-BARGAINING PRACTICES OF THE STUDY COURT ARE DESCRIBED. A DISCUSSION OF PLEA BARGAINING AS A POWER STRUGGLE SHOWS HOW PLEA BARGAINING RETAINS THE ADVERSARY STRUCTURE OF THE TRADITIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM. A STRATEGIC ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG DEFENSE LAWYERS, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES WITHIN THIS STRUCTURE IS OFFERED. VALUES AND PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PLEA BARGAINING ARE EXPLORED BY EXAMINING FACTORS THAT COUNT FOR OR AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN PLEA CONFERENCES. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PLEA BARGAINING AND SOCIETY IS BROUGHT OUT, AND PLEA BARGAINING IS COMPARED WITH LEGAL SYSTEMS IN OTHER SOCIETIES AND WITH THE FORMAL LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES. THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDICAL MODEL AND ITS AMBIGUITIES ON PLEA NEGOTIATION IS CONSIDERED. THE COMMON BELIEFS THAT CASELOAD PRESSURES CAUSE PLEA BARGAINING AND THAT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES COLLABORATE IN PLEA BARGAINING ARE BORNE OUT BY THE STUDY. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO SHOWN THAT CASELOAD PRESSURES ARE TO SOME EXTENT ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED BY COURT ADMINISTRATORS, AND THAT COLLABORATION AMONG DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES IS INTERWOVEN WITH CONFLICT. NOT ONLY DO THESE PARTICIPANTS REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS, THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CONFLICTING INTERESTS IN CONTROLLING THE CASE SETTLEMENT PROCESS. THE STUDY ALSO SHOWS THAT CHARACTERIZING CRIMINAL COURTS AS BUREAUCRACIES IS AN OVERSIMPLIFCATION. A CONSIDERATION OF THE SOCIAL FUNCTION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COURTS, THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF PLEA BARGAINING, UNCERTAINTY IN PLEA BARGAINING, AND CAUSES OF PLEA PATTERNS PROVIDES A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE. THE FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT REFORMERS NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS VALUABLE ABOUT PLEA BARGAINING AND WHAT IS NOT. PLEA BARGAINING DEBASES THE LAW-UPHOLDING FUNCTION OF THE COURT AND GRANTS INORDINATE POWER TO PROSECUTORS. BUT IT ALSO IS A DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE IN WHICH STANDARDS REFLECTING APPROPRIATE SOCIAL AND MORAL CONCERNS ARE APPLIED IN JUDGING DEFENDANTS. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. NO TABULAR DATA ARE PROVIDED. (LKM)