THE DEFENDANT HAD SMUGGLED $36,000 WORTH OF COCAINE FROM MEXICO AND WAS APPREHENDED AFTER SHE TRIED TO SELL IT TO FEDERAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION OFFICERS POSING AS DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE MAFIA. IN A SERIES OF CASES (BRADY V. U.S., MCCARTHY V. U.S., MCMANN V. RICHARDSON, AND PARKER V. NORTH CAROLINA) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS OUTLINED THE BOUNDARIES WITHIN WHICH PLEAS NEGOTIATIONS MUST TAKE PLACE. PHYSICAL FORCE IS FORBIDDEN AND THE PLEA MUST BE VOLUNTARY. HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE OFFERED LENIENCY AND A VARIETY OF PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS ARE PERMITTED. THE DEFENDANT IS ASSURED AN ATTORNEY (GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT), OF ACCESS TO THAT ATTORNEY AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE STATE ACCUSES THE SUSPECT OF A CRIME (ESCOBEDO V. ILLINOIS), AND KNOWLEDGE OF ALL RIGHTS BEFORE ENTERING A PLEA (MIRANDA V. ARIZONA). THE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIPT POINTS OUT THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE MOST LIKELY TO ATTEMPT TO PLEA BARGAIN WHEN A DRUG LAW DEFENDANT IS LIKELY TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS INVOLVED IN SMUGGLING. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ACTS AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE CLIENT, WHO IS FACED WITH A GOOD ARREST AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FELONY CHARGES. IF THE CASE GOES TO TRIAL, A CONVICTION IS LIKELY. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY PREVENTS THE CLIENT FROM HARMING HIS OR HER CASE, POINTS OUT HIS OR HER RIGHTS, AND HELPS THE DRUG AGENTS OBTAIN THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THEY NEED TO ARREST THE SUPPLIER OF THE DRUGS. IN RETURN, THE CHARGES ARE REDUCED. COMMENTARY ACCOMPANIES EACH STEP OF THIS INTERPLAY. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)