Critics have argued that plea negotiations between prosecutor and defense ignore due process, damage the image of justice, and produce inconsistencies in case dispositions. Empirical data does not support the expediency rationale for plea bargaining, but researchers have reported statistical correlations between multiple charges by the police and charge reductions by the prosecutor. Typically, the police will lay whatever charges seem appropriate, leaving the question of double jeopardy for the lawyers to resolve. This paper illustrates the legal parameters that control plea bargaining by focusing on a single case from a study of a Canadian Crown Prosecutor's office which taped informal discussions between the prosecution and defense counsel. The defendants were three young men facing 16 charges arising from an episode of theft. Only one had a previous criminal record, and all cooperated with police in recovering the stolen goods. The final disposition involved guilty pleas to only four charges, and the negotiations were influenced primarily by the strength of the evidence, the relevance of criminal code categories and the fit between facts and laws, the implications of the conviction for sentencing, and lawyers' concern for meeting the objectives of justice even when conviction seemed improbable. This analysis suggests that many ethical objections to plea bargaining are probably overstated and based on misconceptions of the process. The article includes 42 references.