„We conclude that Section 4-243 imposes strict compliance with its rules in its explicit terms. As a natural consequence of strict adherence to the rule, we also conclude that any questions later asked about the importance of the time frame for conviction of a successful appeal contract must be resolved solely on the basis of the minutes established in the procedure under Rule 4-243. The minutes of this proceeding must be reviewed in order to carefully consider what was presented to the court in the presence of the defendant and before the purchase of the agreement, in order to determine what the defendant reasonably understood as the sentence negotiated by the parties and which the court agreed to impose. The consideration of what the defendant reasonably understood at the time of the appeal is objective. It does not depend on what the defendant actually understood the agreement, but on whether a reasonable layperson, in the defendant`s position and without knowledge of the duties of criminal law, would have understood the agreement on the basis of the protocol developed in the appeal procedure. For this reason, the investigation is not relevant to the examination of extrinsic evidence of the defendant`s actual understanding. (Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568, 582 (2010)). Arguments are often considered controversial because they allow an accused to negotiate his sentence. In cases of capital murder, defendants can sometimes negotiate for a life sentence instead of the death penalty, if they agree to reveal concrete details about their crime, such as the location of a victim`s body. The purpose of oral arguments is to reduce the prison population and, in some cases, to give closure of a victim`s family when details of a loved one`s death or the location of their body are revealed.
Subdivision (c) requires the Commission that the Tribunal must give the defendant as a precondition for accepting an admission of guilt. The first rule required the court to find that the means drawn from an „understanding of the nature of the indictment and the consequences of the remedy“ was formed. The amendment specifies what should be explained to the defendant and also codifies the requirements of Boykin/The Defendant as a general rule. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.C. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), which stipulated that an accused should be informed that he was waiving certain constitutional rights by pleading guilty.