The important result of the legal decision-making process is the verdict which can end the trial process and state the form of punishment for the convicted person. However, to understand the details related to interpreting the cases and law and to stating the verdict, it is necessary to analyze the processes related to different courts according to their jurisdiction, and to focus on the real-life examples in order to discuss the problems of accepting a plea bargain and of being wrongly accused. The question of the court’s jurisdiction is discussed when it is necessary to select which court can decide on the certain case appropriately. Following the Felkner v. Jackson case, it is possible to state that different courts are effective to discuss concrete issues and decide on the aspects of the case, but the process of the case resolution can be rather long and complicated. In 2011, Steven Frank Jackson was convicted of many sexual offenses. However, Jackson referred to the Batson v. Kentucky case, and focused on the issue of racism in relation to the California jury who discussed the case. Jackson’s petition was accepted and examined by the California Court of Appeal, and then the California Supreme Court decided according to the court’s jurisdiction to reject the necessity of the case’s review ( Felkner v. Jackson , 2011). Nevertheless, the case was not unresolved even in relation to the Federal District Court. In this situation, the Supreme Court took the jurisdiction to provide the decision, and the previous courts’ decisions were defined as unreasonable. Finally, it is stated by the Supreme Court of the United States that the petition “for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion” ( Felkner v. Jackson , 2011). As a result, it is possible to note that the decision to discuss the case in the Supreme Court of the United States is appropriate because of the necessity to resolve all the controversial points of the case which cannot be resolved in the other courts. The cases when the defendant accepts a plea bargain as an alternative to trial are also very controversial and complicated because this decision can be associated with a kind of pressure from attorneys and prosecutors. Furthermore, the defendant can change his or her decision during the process. Thus, to discuss the question in detail, it is necessary to focus on the Freeman v. United States case (2011). William Freeman was convicted of different crimes associated with drug trafficking and drug delivery. However, Freeman decided to develop the plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The agreement meant that Freeman could plead guilty depending on receiving a specific sentence. The case was rather complicated, and it was decided in 2011 that referring to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the sentence could be reduced “for the offense to which the defendant pled guilty” ( Freeman v. United States , 2011). In spite of the fact that the plea agreement does not mean the alternative to the trial, the case is important to be discussed to decide whether or not justice was served. Referring to this concrete case, it is possible to state that the justice was served because the severity of crimes should be taken into account