(e) the finality of a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. Once the sentence has been handed down by the court, the accused cannot withdraw an admission of guilt or a candidate Nolo, and the opposition can only be lifted in the event of a direct appeal or collateral attack. The new rule states that the court is personally addressed to the defendant in determining the voluntary nature of the plea. Subdivision (1) is intended to clarify that there are four possible concessions that can be made in an appeal contract. First, the levy may be reduced to a lesser or related criminal offence. Second, the lawyer can promise the government to charge other charges. Third, government counsel may agree to recommend or deny the imposition of a particular sentence. Fourth, government and defence counsel may agree that a particular sanction is an appropriate order of the case. This is explicitly expressed in Subdivision (e) (2) when an agreement is referred to ,“pending a specific sanction.“ See note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises By Prosecutors To Secure Guilty Pleas, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 865, 898 (1964). While all of the above considerations support the policy expressed in the new subdivision (h), the Advisory Committee wishes to emphasize two important precautions.

The first is that Division (h) cannot be considered as support for extreme or speculative allegations of harmless error or as de facto for the lifting of significant rule 11 safeguards. This is not a harmless error under Subdivision h where, for example, as in McCarthy, there was no investigation by the judge into the accused`s understanding of the nature of the charge and where the government`s harmless allegation is based only on the assertion that the accused may be „accepted“ to have such an understanding simply because he expressed his wish to plead guilty. Similarly, it would not be harmless for the judge to fully relieve the prosecutor of responsibility for the attribution of the various warnings under Rule 11, as this „leads to the creation of an atmosphere of subtle coercion that clearly violates the policy behind Rule 11.“ United States v Crook, 526 F.2d 708 (5th cir. 1976). The last sentence of Rule 11 (e) (6) is amended to create a second exception to the general rule of non-solvency of the statements described. The amendment also authorizes such a statement „in any proceeding in which another statement has been made in the same plea or plea, and the statement must be reasonably taken into account with it.“ This amendment is necessary to ensure that, where evidence of statements made in the context or as a result of a specific means or as a result of a discussion, is made in circumstances that are not prohibited by this rule (. B, for example, not against the person who argued the plea), other statements relating to the same means or means may also be admitted. relevant to the current situation.