Of course. But that goes for every criminal case. DA's, judges, juries, the political environment, etc. are going to be different in every jurisdiction. Add to that, we don't even have a clear picture of all the facts in this case, so yeah, it's difficult to predict what will happen with a high degree of accuracy.
That doesn't mean, however, that we can't discuss the case, and there are general precepts of law and procedure that we can apply to most cases in evaluating this one as it develops. There are entire TV channels devoted to such things. :)
Well sure. The thing that motivates most defendants to plea out is the promise of a lighter sentence. But "sentence bargaining" as you describe it, and plea bargaining are often tied together. Especially when you take into account mandatory minimums.
It's well known that defendants who are convicted at trial will get on average 3x the sentence they'd get pleading guilty to the same charge. So yes, if for example Battery resulting in great bodily harm carries a 1-5 year mandatory min, a defendant might hope to plea for something closer to one year, whereas he might get something closer to five if he goes to trial. So the sentence is changing, but the crime he's convicted with stays the same in either case.
But if a defendant so charged wants to avoid prison altogether, with that mandatory minimum there's no choice but to get the charge reduced, or counts dropped, to ones that don't carry a minimum prison term. Mandatory mins aren't like sentencing guidelines, and DA's & judges typically don't have a lot of room in sentencing to deviate down from them.
Based on the law as written, if Kamara pleads guilty to the battery count as charged, or convicted at trial, he's going inside. The law requires that. A plea to lesser battery charge, and he might avoid it. That's what plea bargaining is all about.