Question: How did the defendant plead in his case relating to wildlife crime?
About the article "Yellowstone National Park", section "Legal jurisdiction".

Candidate passages:
The question of unfitness to plead is determined by a judge.
The decision should normally be made as soon as it arises, which would ordinarily be before arraignment, but the court may postpone consideration of unfitness until any time before the opening of the defence case.
This power might be used to allow the defence to challenge the prosecution case on the basis that there is no case to answer.
If the judge determines that the defendant is unfit to plead, evidence will be heard and the jury will be asked to determine whether he did the act or made the omission charged against him as the offence.
This process avoids the detention of innocent persons in hospital merely because they are mentally unfit.
It has been held that the reference to the "act or omission" means that the jury should not normally consider whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea.
If the jury find that the defendant is unfit to plead, the judge may:  make a guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;  make a supervision and treatment order within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991; or  make an order for his absolute discharge.  
The defendant’s first court date is called the initial appearance.
The court informs the defendant of the charges filed against him or her and gives the defendant a copy of the complaint.
The court also informs the defendant of his or her right to have an attorney and that if the defendant is indigent and requests counsel, the court will appoint an attorney.
If the defendant is in custody, the court determines whether to release the defendant on bail, and if the defendant is released, imposes conditions for bail.
In a misdemeanor case, the court may set the trial date at the initial appearance.
The next court action in a misdemeanor case is the arraignment.
Further steps are required in a felony case.
At the initial appearance, the court informs a felony defendant that he or she is entitled to a preliminary examination before the criminal case may go forward.
The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine in a felony case whether the district attorney can show probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony.
If not, the court must dismiss the felony complaint.
At the preliminary examination the district attorney and defendant may call witnesses and present evidence.
If the court determines that the district attorney has shown probable cause or if the defendant waives his or her right to a preliminary examination, the case goes forward.
The prosecutor files a pleading called an “information,” which informs the court of the crime with which the defendant is charged and states the date and place of the crime.
An arraignment is held in both misdemeanor and felony cases.
At the arraignment, the complaint or information is read out loud unless the defendant waives reading, and in a felony case the district attorney gives the defendant a copy of the information.
The court then asks the defendant to submit a plea.
The defendant may plead “guilty”, “no contest”, “not guilty”, or “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect”.
A plea of no contest has the same effect in a criminal case as a guilty plea, except it cannot be used as an admission of criminal action in a civil case.
The defendant may not enter a plea of no contest without approval from the court.
If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the court sentences the defendant or places the defendant on probation.
If the defendant pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the case proceeds to trial. 
A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or 'copping a plea') is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.
This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.
A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge.
For example, in the U.S. legal system, a criminal defendant charged with a felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which may not carry a custodial sentence.
In cases such as an automobile collision when there is a potential for civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead no contest or "guilty with a civil reservation", which essentially is a guilty plea without admitting civil liability.
Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients.
In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge.
In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges.
In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge.
In fact bargaining, defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (i.e., to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the sentencing guidelines. 
Supreme Court ruling.
Justice Byron White wrote that the Court had accepted the case for review because some states authorized conviction only for a crime “where guilt is shown,” including by means of a guilty plea that included an actual admission of guilt; but “others have concluded that they should not ‘force any defense on a defendant in a criminal case,’ particularly when advancement of the defense might ‘end in disaster…’” and therefore would accept a guilty plea in Alford's circumstances.
White wrote that courts may accept whatever plea a defendant chooses to enter, as long as the defendant is competently represented by counsel; the plea is intelligently chosen; and “the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt.” Faced with “grim alternatives,” the defendant's best choice of action may be to plead guilty to the crime, White wrote, and the courts must accept the defendant's choice made in his own interests. 
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence.
This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the "nolo contendere" plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt.