Plea bargaining is an agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in order to obtain a concession from the prosecutor in a criminal case . This could mean that the accused will plead guilty to the original criminal charge to receive a relatively lenient sentence. By the end of the 18th century, the need for a plea bargain was unnecessary. Since the judge had dictated the regular jury trial, the attorneys were irrelevant and the entire proceeding moved quickly. Subsequently, adversarial procedure and the law of evidence injected great complexity into jury trials and made them impractical as a routine decision-making procedure. Various factors prompted 19th-century common law procedure to channel the growing caseload into a non-trial plea bargaining procedure. Previously, it was thought that the United Kingdom did not practice this mode of procedure. However, its existence in the English penal system was confirmed by a study carried out by McConville and Baldwin in 1977. After the appeal of R v Turner (1970), some aspects of plea bargaining changed; Previously, judges worked in active cooperation, but this case effectively barred them from indicating the proposed sentence if the defendant pleaded guilty. In 1993, the Crown Court review by Zander and Henderson indicated the need for reform to allow realistic discussion of plea and sentence between defense and prosecution counsel and the judge. Some essential characteristics of plea bargaining are that it is a mode of procedure without trial, which overturns the convention that "in all criminal proceedings, the accused enjoys the right to a trial by an impartial jury ". Additionally, when a defendant is found guilty following a jury trial,......amidst the paperwork......reduced caseload, the student is assigned a “B” unworthy. The irregularity and illegitimacy observed in this scenario are analogous to the theory applied to an entire justice system. In the analysis, the focus is on the issue of coercion. The question is whether a negotiated guilty plea is coerced and therefore not the product of a voluntary choice. In plea bargaining, coercion manipulates the defendant into involuntarily making the decision to plead guilty. Whereas, in a properly reformed plea bargaining system, the decision to plead guilty need not be coerced. Two situations are possible. The first where an erroneous plea should be a legal nullity, the second where plea bargaining should be abolished because the accused cannot be presumed to be the authors of what they say. “I am not guilty but I plead guilty” is probably the summary of the fall of justice