JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Eric L. Hart, was charged with armed robbery(720 ILCS 5/18-2(a) (West 2000)) and aggravated fleeing orattempting to elude a police officer (625 ILCS 5/11-204.1 (West2000)). In January 2002, a jury found defendant guilty on bothcounts, and in May 2002, the trial court sentenced defendant toconcurrent terms of 20 and 3 years' imprisonment, with credit for369 days' time served. Defendant appeals, arguing he was denieda fair trial when the prosecutor elicited testimony that heattempted to plea bargain and commented on that attempt inclosing argument. We reverse and remand.

On May 20, 2001, a Clark Oil gas station in Decatur wasrobbed by a man wearing pantyhose on his head and carrying a .22-caliber pistol. A worker at the gas station described the robberas a black male, mid to late twenties, about 5 feet 11 inches to6 feet tall, 160 to 180 pounds, wearing either a black or blue"Starter" shirt with white or gold lettering across it, and bluejeans. Shortly thereafter, a police officer passed a vehiclecontaining a person matching the robber's description. Theofficer pursued the vehicle at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour. After the vehicle lost control and left the road, the suspectfled on foot. The suspect was apprehended and identified asdefendant.

Michael Beck, former detective with the Decatur policedepartment, testified at trial that he interviewed defendant. Beck first told defendant that he did not have to speak with him. Defendant spoke to Beck about a warrant on file that defendantthought had been taken care of. The following colloquy then tookplace:

"Q. [Assistant State's Attorney:] Okay.  Uh--and after speaking with you about the warrant that he had thought was already previously taken care of, did he make any statements about the incident in which he was arrested?

A. [Beck:] Yes, I told him the reason that I was up there to interview him was in reference to the armed robbery, and at that time, I told him I knew he was involved in the armed robbery and he didn't offer any  denial at that time. He did not deny being involved but asked me what I could do for him if he cooperated. I advised him at that time I couldn't make any promises to him if he cooperated; however, I would contact the State's Attorney's [o]ffice and advise them of his cooperation."

Beck testified defendant then requested to make a phonecall to his mother, which he was allowed to do. Defendant saidthat he wanted to pray with his mother. When defendant finishedpraying, he told Beck that he wanted to think about whether hewanted to make a statement. That concluded the interview.

Defendant testified at trial that he was on his way tohis mother's house to take care of his dogs when a police carpulled up behind him, followed him for about a block, and turnedon its lights. He drove on because he did not have a driver'slicense, a warrant was out for his arrest, and he wanted to parkat a friend's house so that his car would not be towed. Thepolice car hit him from the back and knocked him off the road. He was scared, so he jumped out of the car and ran.

During closing argument, defense counsel noted thatdefendant did not make an admission to Detective Beck, that theonly thing defendant said was that he wanted to pray. Theprosecutor subsequently argued:

"The defendant, also, mentioned the fact that he wanted to pray [with] his mother is not an indication of guilt, but you remember what Officer Beck told you? He didn't just want to pray with his mother. He wanted to know what he would get or what kind of compensation or what kind of agreement or whatever he would get if he cooperated. And, [l]adies and [g]entlemen, only guilty men want to know what they get if they cooperate."

Defendant did not object to the allegedly impropertestimony and argument at trial, nor did he raise these issues ina posttrial motion. Under the plain-error rule, however, areviewing court may consider a trial error that was not properlypreserved (1) when the evidence is closely balanced, or (2) wherethe error is so fundamental and of such magnitude that thedefendant has been denied a fair trial. People v. Williams, 193Ill. 2d 306, 348-49, 739 N.E.2d 455, 477 (2000). The plain-errorrule warrants our consideration of this allegation of error.

Supreme Court Rule 402(f) provides:

"If a plea discussion does not result in a plea of guilty, *** neither the plea discussion nor any resulting agreement, plea, or judgment shall be admissible against the defendant in any criminal proceeding." 177 Ill. 2d R. 402(f).

"The characterization of a statement as plea related,and therefore inadmissible under Rule 402(f), must necessarilyturn on the facts of each case." People v. Friedman, 79 Ill. 2d341, 351-52, 403 N.E.2d 229, 235 (1980). A great variety ofsituations are possible. The defendant may explicitly ask aboutmaking a deal, or the defendant may explicitly state that he hasunconditionally decided to cooperate in the general hope that itwill do him some good. The defendant may not be explicit and maytake different positions. The detective may refuse to talk tothe defendant at all about a plea negotiation, or as in thiscase, the detective may state that he will advise the State'sAttorney's office of defendant's cooperation. The defendant'sresponse may be that he will not talk to the detective, or he mayadmit a few things, or he may make a full statement. The prosecutor may attempt to present the defendant's admissions to thejury, or as in this case, the prosecutor may simply tell the jurythat defendant was interested in a plea negotiation. Many othervariations are possible.

We should be careful about excluding an admission madeby a defendant to a police investigator as an unsuccessful pleanegotiation under Rule 402(f). Every guilty person who voluntarily speaks to a detective probably hopes to benefit from theconversation, either by convincing the detective that he did notcommit the crime or by obtaining leniency for his cooperation. The police have an investigatory function that the courts andeven the State's Attorney do not have. See 5 W. LaFave, J.Israel & N. King, Criminal Procedure