(C) the plea of appeal was involuntary or was recorded without knowledge of the indictment or knowledge of the actual sentence imposed; At present, Article 11 (e) (e) (5) provides that the parties, unless there is a justiciable ground, give the court the opportunity to submit a contract of appeal. That provision has been removed. First, the Commission found that, although the provision was originally developed to assist judges, few advisory boards could, in current practice, risk the consequences if they did not inform the court of the existence of an agreement. Second, the Committee was concerned that there would be few instances where the parties could agree that the Tribunal`s information on the existence of an agreement could jeopardize a defendant or jeopardize an ongoing investigation in a related case. In the end, the Committee felt that it would be preferable to remove the provision and reduce the risk of disclosure of preliminary procedures. b) Where a defendant has duly renounced a lawyer and has made an admission of guilt or a Nolo candidate, the court should only accept the plea if it is confirmed by the defendant within a reasonable period of time set by the rule or law, after the defendant has received the court deliberation required by standard14-1 .4. (b) If the court has doubts as to whether the defendant understands his rights and other cases whose notification must be submitted in accordance with this standard, the defendant should be asked to repeat to the Court, in his own words, the information relating to those rights and other cases, or the court should take the other necessary steps to ensure that the guilty order fully understands the consequences. Subdivision (1) (1) states that «government counsel and counsel for the defendant or defendant, if acting for him,» may participate in oral arguments. The «defendant`s involvement in the pro-suit action» must reflect the fact that there are situations in which a defendant insists on representing himself. It may be desirable for a government lawyer not to have personal interviews with a plea accused. If necessary, a lawyer may be appointed for oral arguments.
(Subdivision d) makes it mandatory for the court to ask the defendant whether his plea is the result of pleas between him and the government lawyer. The court should thus be able to refuse an agreement from an unrepresented defendant unless the court is satisfied that the acceptance of the agreement adequately protects the defendant`s rights and the interests of justice.) This is essentially the position of ABA standards with respect to debt stays No. 3.1 (a), comment to 65-66 (Approved Draft, 1968). Apparently, it is the practice of most prosecutors to make oral arguments with the accused`s lawyer. Note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises By Prosecutors To Secure Guilty Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 865, 904 (1964). Discussions without the assistance of a lawyer increase the likelihood that such discussions may be unfair. Some courts have indicated that oral arguments in the absence of counsel for the accused could be prohibited by the Constitution.
See Anderson v. North Carolina, 221 F.Supp. 930, 935 (W.D.N.C.1963); Shape v. Sigler, 230 F.Supp. 601, 606 (D.Neb. 1964). Although reliable statistical information is limited, a recent estimate showed that guilty pleas account for up to 95% of all criminal proceedings. ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, 1-2 (Approved Draft, 1968). A large part of this amount is the result of pleas. Commission of the President of Justice and Justice, Task Force Report: Courts 9 (1967); D. Newman, Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial 3 (1966); L. Weinreb, Criminal Trial 437 (1969); Note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises by Prosecutors To Secure Guilty Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev.