Arguments [31] in court proceedings are admissible only to the extent that prosecutors and defence can agree that the accused will plead guilty to certain counts and the prosecutor will drop the rest. [Citation required] Although this is not a plea, the defence may, in Crown court cases, ask the judge for an indication of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed if the accused pleads guilty. [32] [33] Rule 11, under c) (1) (C) of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, when it accepts a plea that contains an agreement between the government and the defendant regarding a sentence, a specified criminal framework or the applicability of a provision, statement of principle or a prison factor, the Tribunal is bound by the parties` agreement for the purposes of the conviction. Arguments are governed by section 11, point (c), which does not bind certain types of agreements between the government and a defendant for the district court and others. Plea`s good business is so common in California Superior Courts that the Judicial Council of California has issued an optional seven-page form (which contains all mandatory advice prescribed by federal and national law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce these good cases in written arguments. [23] The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been investigated. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research. [14] She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was presented with evidence of guilt and offered the choice between reviewing an academic ethics committee and perhaps a great deal of punishment with respect to additional courses and other effect, or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence.” The study showed that, as predicted in the court statistics, about 90% of the accused, who were actually guilty, decided to enter a plea and plead guilty. It also noted that about 56% of those who were truly innocent (and who knew him in private) also make their pleas and plead guilty for reasons such as prevention of formal judicial proceedings, insecurity, the possibility of significant damage to future personal projects or the withdrawal of the domestic environment due to remediation courses.