THIS NOTE SURVEYS THE CHANGES WRITTEN INTO THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS RULE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF GUILTY AND NOLO CONTENDERE PLEAS, ANALYZNG THE EXTENT OF THEIR DERIVATION FROM CASE LAW DEVELOPMENT BEFORE AND SINCE THE 1966 RULE, AND PROBING THEIR LIKELY EFFECT ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO COME. THE NEW RULE EXPANDS THE PERSONAL DISCUSSION WHICH MUST OCCUR IN OPEN COURT BETWEEN JUDGE AND DEFENDANT. NOT ONLY MUST THE COURT DETERMINE THAT THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AND THE CONSEQUENCES, BUT MUST INFORM HIM OF THEM, PARTICULARLY HIS RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY, TO CONFRONT ONE'S ACCUSERS, AND AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. IN ADDITION, THE 'CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA' REQUIREMENT IS DELINEATED TO INCLUDE THE MANDATORY MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POSSIBLE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW. ANOTHER SECTION OF THE AMENDED RULE REQUIRES A DETERMINATION OF THE ACCURACY (FACTUAL BASIS) OF THE GUILTY PLEA DEVELOPED ON THE RECORD. TWO OTHER RELATED SECTIONS, HOWEVER, ARE LIKELY TO ENGENDER CONTROVERSY. THEY PROVIDE THAT IF, AT THE TIME OF A PLEA OF GUILTY WHICH IS LATER WITHDRAWN, OR NOLO CONTENDERE, OR AN OFFER TO PLEAD EITHER, THE DEFENDANT MAKES STATEMENTS RELATED TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLEA - ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL - EVIDENCE OF SUCH STATEMENTS MAY BE USED IN A SUBSEQUENT PERJURY PROSECUTION, THOUGH NOT IN ANY OTHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE CHANGES ADD UP TO A RENEWED CONCERN FOR CONSISTENT RESULTS IN THE COURTS AND IN TIGHTENED GUIDELINES FOR TRIAL JUDGES.