Subdivision rating (c) (5). Subdivision (c) (5) can be easily understood, in its present form, as such that, in all cases where a conviction or a claim to Nolo is made, warnings about the possible use of the defendant`s affidavits, minutes and in the presence of assistance, must be subject to a subsequent charge of perjury or misrepresentation. Language has led some courts to obtain the remarkable result that an accused who pleads guilty or nolo claiming without receiving these warnings can overturn his plea on appeal, although he has never been questioned under oath in the minutes, in the presence of a lawyer about the offence he has pleaded. United States v. Artis, 78-5012 (4. Cir. March 12, 1979); United States vs. Boone, 543 F.2d 1090 (4th Cir. 1976).
Compare USA v. Michaelson, 552 F.2d 472 (2d Cir. 1977) (Un arrested (c) (5) No basis warnings for a reversal, “at least if, as here, the accused was not sworn before questioning his guilty speech.” This language of subordination (c) (5) may also have contributed to the conclusion, which is not otherwise supported by the rule that “Rule 11 requires the defendant to take an oath all the proceedings under that rule” and that the failure of the defendant itself would require the annulment of the plea. United States vs. Aldridge, 553 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1977). (A) the Tribunal rejects an appeal under Article 11, point c)5); (s) of an agreement procedure through an appeal. It thus recognizes the relevance of oral arguments and oral arguments, provided that they are disclosed in open proceedings and are accepted or rejected by the judge. Of course, the prevalence of convictions does not necessarily confirm these arguments or the system that produces them. But we cannot be considered unconstitutional if the state extends an advantage to an accused who, in turn, gives a substantial advantage to the state and shows through his plea that he is ready and willing to admit his crime and to enter a prison that hopes, over a shorter period, for a success in rehabilitation than would otherwise be necessary.
The subsection (5) of Section c of Rule 11 differs qualitatively from the other sections of the rule. It is not a question of whether the plea is done knowingly or voluntarily, nor whether the plea has been accepted and whether the judgment has been rendered. Rather, it is the possible consequences of an event that may or may not occur during the trial itself, namely, to swear an oath to the defendant. Whether this event will occur is entirely under the control of the presiding judge.