Common misconceptions would include thinking that they have to go to jail, that there is no way to get the case dismissed, or that there is some magical way to get the case dismissed. Sometimes people believe that because they were not read their rights that that must be a get-out-of-jail free card or an automatic dismissal, and that may or may not be the case.
It is not quite like TV, where the police officer might want to get the case thrown out so he purposely does not read the person their rights. If the person has been arrested and their rights are not read to them but they are subsequently interrogated or questioned, then their answers may not be able to be used against them, because they were not warned of their right to not answer and to remain silent. It does not mean that the case is automatically thrown out.
If they do not have any evidence after that, then that might be the result.
Mostly, they are just scared and nervous; they do not know what is going to happen. They do not know if it is going to affect the rest of their lives, or are they going to jail. They do not know if there is anything that can be done to help them, or how much is this going to cost. They are worried about the effect on their reputation, how much time it is going to take and will they miss work.
I caution them that pleading guilty might not be in their best interests and while I understand that they may feel bad about it and that they may actually believe that they committed the crime that is not the end of the discussion or the end of the story. The state has to be able to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt with legally admissible evidence. Since they are presumed innocent, whether they committed the crime or not is really not the question.
The question is whether or not the government can prove it in a courtroom beyond a reasonable doubt, to a unanimous jury of six people in a misdemeanor; twelve in a felony; with legally admissible evidence. Even if they feel like they are guilty and even if I believe the government can prove it, there are always going to be some questions about what punishment is correct, whether it should be a lesser punishment, or other mitigating factors that work to their advantage.
So, the question is really not whether they are guilty, whether or not they committed the crime; the question is really much more complicated than that.
I have not seen any of those cases yet. I am anticipating it is going to happen. The more likely scenario is it is going to be a person who is licensed to carry but who goes into a business that has posted a sign disallowing carry. They can post a sign so you cannot concealed carry but you can open carry or they can prohibit open carry or they can prohibit both.
There are some grocery store chains that allow, as Kroger does, some that do not. A lot of banks have posted signs not allowing it. It just depends from business to business. It is also interesting that private universities can prohibit open or concealed carry but public universities cannot, they all have some type of restrictions but not prohibited all together.