What happens to innocent people when they enter a guilty plea?

I am basing this on TV shows. Why do they plead guilty when they are in fact, innocent? Do they really waive their rights?

What if the one who enter the guilty plea is a lawyer (Then innocence is proven after the trial)? Would the plea entered damage his credibility/reputation as a legal representative? Can they be given bail to "investigate?" Can they even cross-examine witnesses or defend themselves? I'm curious. Thanks!
when you pleed "guilty" to a charge . when in fact you are innocent. you will be convicted. if later on it is proven you are innocent.. it will be your criticize. and you have to fire your council in order to save from harm yourself. I have no earthly idea why a truly innocent individual would purposely enter a guilty plea. If they did, they should be psychologically examined. If they were proven innocent and falsely confessed guilt, they would be guilty of perjury at least.
Q. Why do they plead guilty when they are in fact, innocent?
A. Because the cost of a trial (either lawful fees or public humiliation) is worse than the punishment.

Q. Do they really waive their rights?
A. Yes

Q. What if the one who entered the guilty plea is a lawyer (Then innocence is proven after the trial)?
A. There is not a trial if a guilty plea is entered.

Q. Would the plea enter damage his credibility/reputation as a lawyer?
A. No

Q. Can they be given bail to "investigate?" Can they even cross-examine witnesses or defend themselves?
A. All of these things crop up at a trial. A guilty plea is instead of a trial, so no.

Q. Can/Do lawyers do this on purpose even without coercion/plea bargain/agreement to eat up sentence?
A. I now see where you are going with this. A legal representative is NOT allowed to enter a guilty plea with the consent of the person for whom the plea is being enter.
Once you plead guilty (for whatever reason), you are treated as if you are, in reality, guilty.

Plea bargainings are seldom entered without the input of an attorney. Technically, an attorney cannot "enter" a plea, they merely advise their client of their option.

Once you start talking without an attorney, you are effectively waiving your rights (assuming you own been read the Miranda).

One does have the right to represent oneself in court (pro se) and if you are acting as your own attorney, you will know how to cross-examine witnesses and do anything else an attorney might do if he were representing you.

You probably will not get bail to "investigate" unless you would otherwise have bail beside a real attorney.
Sometimes, in these cases the people who are innocent communicate with the lawyers, of course if you plead guilty you can procure a lesser sentence. in cases where it doesn't look similar to a good chance the case will turn around usually the character on trial pleads 'guilty'. it is the defendant who chooses innocent or guilty.
--------from--------
The Magical Fluffy Bunny : ) !
People accept plea bargains and enter guilty pleas all the time for engagements they might not be responsible for. Reasons: to protect someone, to take the blame for someone else, being too afraid of a jury trial verdict, to go and get it over asap,... but the main reason, in my experience, is twist control. They do not want to risk the maximum prison term so they accept the plea bargain.

If a guilty plea is enter, there will NOT be a trial.
they are found guilty of the crime and sentenced appropriately It appears that you don't understand the basics of pleas.

If a person pleads guilty nearby is no trial and therefore it is impposible for a person to plead guilty and subsequently to be found not guilty at trial.

When a person pleads guilty it is more than lately of a matter of the person saying "I' guilty."

The Judge will, to start with, warn them that pleading guilty ends their right to a trial and will explain each ot the rights and how the plea of guilty will affect those rights.

The prosecutor will explain the facts of the bag and describe the evidence that the state will use to establiush each element of the offense.

The Judge will then interrogate the defendant to make sure that he/she agrees that the facts of the case are as have be stated. They will often ask the defendant to describe the facts in their own words.

They will then ask the lawyer to describe the nature of the plea agreement as it relates to fines/jail time/probation.

The judge will then ask the defendant if the plea agreement set forth by the lawyer is what they understood it to be.

Further, the judge will then ask the defendant as to whether they have been threatened, coerced or otherwise placed under duress.

If and singular if the judge believes that 1) the defendant is indeed guilty 2) that he/she is fully aware of their rights including their right to trial, 3) the sentance agreed upon is fair under the circumstance and 4) that their plea is made voluntarily will the adjudicate accept the plea and proceed to sentancing.

The notion that innocent people routinely plead guilt is nonsense.

There is a plea certain as an "Alford plea" in which a person does not confess but concedes that the evidence is sufficient to convict them. There is also the possiblity of pleading "Nolo contendre" (I do not contend) which is essentially the same article but neither of these are common.

Anyone who has been involved surrounded by the administration of justice will tell you that, according to prisoners, nearby are NO guilty people in prison. They are ALL innocent...or at least that's what most of them utter. Claiming to have been "framed," railroaded," or victimized by an incompetent or dishonest advocate are all just part of this phenomena.