Between a rock and a hard place.

In 1995, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conviction against a youth who faced a classic Catch-22. Stephen K. had been charged with 10 sexual offences involving five girls. His lawyer told him the Crown would accept a guilty plea to four relatively minor charges; there would be no time in custody. But Stephen K., all the time protesting his innocence, went along with the offer. He did so to avoid the possibility of a hefty sentence should he be convicted at trial. After all, it was going to be his word against five complainants. Stephen continued to emphatically declare his innocence, an attitude that did not please the trial judge. The youth's lack of remorse was "of great concern to me," said the judge who put Stephen away for 60 days. The Appeal Court pointed out that a plea bargain carries little weight if the accused claims to be innocent: "This case provides a graphic example of why it is essential to the plea-bargaining process that the accused person is prepared to admit the facts that support the conviction."