RESEARCH INVOLVING 33 JURISDICTIONS, OF WHICH 5 WERE THE SUBJECTS OF INTENSIVE ANALYSIS, INDICATES THAT PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL TEND TO AGREE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CASE STRENGTH AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AS DETERMINANTS IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS. HOWEVER, THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS ARE LESS CONCERNED THAN THE PROSECUTORS WITH THE OPINION OF THE POLICE AND THE VICTIMS OF CRIME. PROSECUTORS ARE RELATIVELY UNCONCERNED WITH THE MINOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT, AND NOT INTERESTED IN OPPOSING COUNSEL'S REPUTATION, OR THE TRIAL JUDGE'S REPUTATION FOR LENIENCY. ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION IN A CASE IS DONE ACCURATELY WHEN THE CASES ARE STRONG, BUT NOT WHEN THE CASES ARE WEAK. ALTHOUGH PROSECUTORS AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES AND WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL IN ESTIMATES OF THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION IN STRONG CASES, THEY DISAGREE IN THE ESTIMATES OF THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION IN WEAK CASES. DIFFERENCES IN THE SERIOUSNESS OF PRIOR RECORD DID NOT AFFECT SIGNIFICANTLY PROSECUTORS' SENTENCING DECISIONS IN THE STUDY, BUT IN WEAK CASES, SUCH DIFFERENCES DO HAVE AN IMPACT. CONTRARY TO REPORTED LITERATURE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE MORE LIKELY THAN PROSECUTORS TO TAKE A CASE TO TRIAL. HOWEVER, THIS LIKELIHOOD MAY EXIST ONLY IF THE TRIAL JUDGE IS KNOWN TO BE LENIENT. IN SUMMARY, THE CONCEPT OF 'COURT BUSTING' APPEARS TO BE A MYTH. VIRTUALLY ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL REPORTED THAT THEY NEVER THREATEN TO TAKE CASES TO TRIAL AS A NEGOTIATION TACTIC. TABULAR DATA, APPENDIXES, AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)