Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T11:09:03.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Role of the Prosecutor

from Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Alexander Heinze  and
Shannon Fyfe
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Julian Roberts ,
Thomas Weigend  and
Alexander Heinze
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Summary

The prosecutor’s position within the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. Robert Jackson, former United States Attorney General, who gained worldwide reputation through his role as Chief United States Prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, remarked fully seventy-five years ago that: ‘The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.’ Prosecutors are ‘the criminal justice system’s real lawmakers’ and ‘the gatekeepers to the justice system’ system’, insofar as they make the crucial decisions about which individuals enter the criminal justice system and under what conditions they move through it.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 343 - 388
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albonetti, C. A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, Law and Society Review, 21 (1987), 291–314.Google Scholar
Alexander, L., ‘Are Procedural Rights Derivative Substantive Rights?’, Law and Philosophy, 17 (1998), 19–42.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘Courtroom Misconduct by Prosecutors and Trial Judges’, Texas Law Review, 50 (1972), 629–735.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A. W., ‘Implementing the Criminal Defendant’s Right to Trial’, University of Chicago Law Review, 50 (1983), 931–1050.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘The International Criminal Justice System and Prosecutorial Selection Policy’, in Ackerman, B., Ambos, K. and Sikirić, H. (eds.), Visions of Justice – Liber Amicorum Mirjan Damaška, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 23–55.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Case comment on EU Court of Justice, Judgment of 27 May 2019 in Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU’, Juristenzeitung (2019), 732–5.Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures in Comparative Criminal Procedure’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher (2017), 27–100.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice relating to Prosecutorial Investigations, 3rd edn, Washington, DC, American Bar Association (2008).Google Scholar
American Civil Liberties Union, Unlocking the Black Box – How the Prosecutorial Transparency Act Will Empower Communities and Help End Mass Incarceration (2019), available at www.aclu.org/report/unlocking-black-box.Google Scholar
Anders, R. P., ‘Straftheoretische Anmerkungen zur Verletztenorientierung im Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 374–410.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Ross D. and Brown L., Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Armenian, A. V., ‘Selectivity in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, 16 (2016), 642–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmaier, L., ‘The Principle of Legality, Discretionary Justice and Plea Agreements: The Practice in Spain’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 89–114.Google Scholar
Barkow, R. E., ‘Institutional Design and the Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law’, Stanford Law Review, 61 (2009), 869–921.Google Scholar
Barkow, R. E., ‘Prosecutorial Administration: Prosecutor Bias and the Department of Justice’, Virginia Law Review, 99 (2013), 271–342.Google Scholar
Beale, S. S., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion in Three Systems’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 27–58.Google Scholar
Bellin, J., ‘The Power of Prosecutors’, New York University Law Review, 94 (2019), 171–212.Google Scholar
Boerner, D., ‘Prosecution in Washington State’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective, Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago Press (2012), 167–210.Google Scholar
Bommer, F., Deiters, M., Eser, A., Frister, H., Gleß, S., Jahn, M., Jung, H., Meier, B.-D., Rengier, R., Roxin, C., Schmoller, K., Schöch, H., Stuckenberg, C.-F., Verrel, T., and Weigend, T. ‘Alternativ-Entwurf Abgekürzte Strafverfahren im Rechtsstaat (AE-ASR)’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 166 (2019), 1–128.Google Scholar
Bouloc, B. and Matsopoulou, H., Droit pénal général et procédure pénal, 20th edn, Paris, Sirey (2016).Google Scholar
Boyne, S. M., The German Prosecution Service, Berlin, Springer (2014).Google Scholar
Brants, C., Field, S. and Jörg, N., ‘Discretion and Accountability in Prosecution: A Comparative Perspective on Keeping Crime out of Court’, in Harding, C., Fennell, P. W. H., Jörg, N. and Swart, B. (eds.), Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1995), 127–48.Google Scholar
Brink, D. O., ‘Some Forms and Limits of Consequentialism’, in Copp, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford University Press (2006), 380–423.Google Scholar
Caianiello, M., ‘Disclosure before the ICC’, International Criminal Law Review, 10 (2010), 23–42.Google Scholar
Caldwell, H. M., ‘The Prosecutor Prince: Misconduct, Accountability, and a Modest Proposal’, Catholic University Law Review, 63 (2013), 51–101.Google Scholar
Cancio Meliá, M., ‘Erledigung von Strafverfahren ohne Hauptverhandlung: erste Schritte in Spanien’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 130 (2018), 476–90.Google Scholar
Cardenas, J., ‘The Crime Victim in the Prosecutorial Process’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 9 (1986), 357–98.Google Scholar
Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K. and South, N., Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, 3rd edn, London, Routledge (2014).Google Scholar
Cassell, P. G., ‘Overstating America’s Wrongful Conviction Rate?’, Arizona Law Review, 60 (2018), 815–63.Google Scholar
Cassidy, R. M., ‘Character and Context: What Virtue Theory Can Teach Us about a Prosecutor’s Ethical Duty to Seek Justice’, Notre Dame Law Review, 82 (2006), 635–98.Google Scholar
Cicchini, M., ‘Spin Doctors: Prosecutor Sophistry and the Burden of Proof’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 87 (2018), 489–521.Google Scholar
Combs, N. A., ‘Copping a Plea to Genocide: The Plea Bargaining of International Crimes’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 51 (2003), 1–157.Google Scholar
Corso, P., ‘Italy’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 223–60.Google Scholar
Crump, D., ‘Brady v. Maryland, Attorney Discipline, and Materiality’, Hofstra Law Review, 45 (2016), 515–36.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. P., ‘Can an Ethical Person Be an Ethical Prosecutor?’, Cardozo Law Review, 31 (2010), 2139–59.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure’, Yale Law Journal, 84 (1975), 480–544.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice and State Authority, New Haven and London, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Models of Criminal Procedure’, Zbornik Pravnog Fakulleta u Zagrebu, 51 (2001), 477–516.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘What Is the Point of International Criminal Law?’, Chicago Kent Law Review, 83 (2008), 329–65.Google Scholar
Dannecker, G. and Roberts, J., ‘The Law of Criminal Procedure’, in Ebke, W. F. and Finkin, M. W. (eds.), An Introduction to German Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law Internation (1996), 413–48.Google Scholar
Danner, A. M., ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’, The American Journal of International Law, 97 (2003), 510–52.Google Scholar
Davies, M., Croall, H. and Tyrer, J., Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, London, Pearson Education Limited (2005).Google Scholar
Davis, A. J., Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Deiters, M., ‘Abgekürzte Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 130 (2018), 491–512.Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Process, Cambridge University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., ‘Über das Ziel des Strafverfahrens’, in Fahl, C., Müller, E., Satzger, H. and Swoboda, S. (eds.), Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70 Geburtstag, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015), 679–87.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘American Plea Bargains, German Lay Judges, and the Crisis of Criminal Procedure’, Stanford Law Review, 49 (1997), 547–72.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., The Trial on Trial, III: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Discretion and Accountability in Democratic Criminal Law’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-national Study, Cambridge University Press (2017), 1–8.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (1977).Google Scholar
Elliott, C. and Quinn, F., English Legal System, 17th edn, London, Pearson (2016).Google Scholar
Ellis, M. J., ‘The Origins of the Elected Prosecutor’, Yale Law Journal, 121 (2012), 1528–69.Google Scholar
Esser, R., Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Strafverfahrensrecht, Berlin, De Gruyter (2002).Google Scholar
Faget, J., La médiation: Essai de politique pénale, Toulouse, Erès (1997).Google Scholar
Fair and Just Prosecution, 21 Principles for the 21st Century Prosecutor (2018), available at www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/FJP_21Principles_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Federico, G. di, ‘Prosecutorial Independence and the Democratic Requirement of Accountability in Italy’, British Journal of Criminology, 38 (1998) 371–87.Google Scholar
Felstiner, W. L. F., ‘Plea Contracts in West Germany’, Law and Society Review, 13 (1979), 309–25.Google Scholar
Fezer, G., ‘Inquisitionsprozess ohne Ende? Zur Struktur des neuen Verständigungsgesetzes’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 30 (2010), 177–85.Google Scholar
Fionda, J., Public Prosecutors and Discretion: A Comparative Story, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1995).Google Scholar
Fischer, T., ‘Absprache-Regelung: Problemlösung oder Problem?’, Strafverteidiger Forum, 5 (2009), 177–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, T., ‘Einleitung’, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 8th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Frase, R. S. and Weigend, T., ‘German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions?’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1995), 317–60.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. L., The Morality of Law, New Haven, Yale University Press (1964).Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N., ‘Introduction’, in Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (eds.), Exercising Discretion: Decision-Making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond, New York, Willian Publishing (2003), 1–28.Google Scholar
Geppert, K., ‘Zum “fair-trial-Prinzip” nach Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, Juristische Ausbildung (1992), 597–604.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. J., ‘Decisions, Decisional Referents, and Administrative Justice’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 37 (1972), 3–48.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, G., Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe, Berlin, Springer (2014).Google Scholar
Givelber, D., ‘Meaningless Acquittals, Meaningful Convictions’, Rutgers Law Review, 49 (1997), 1317–97.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, J. S., Irons-Guynn, C. and Weiland, D., Community Prosecution Strategies, US Department of Justice (2003), available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/195062.pdf.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. S., ‘Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty Pleas and the Public Interest’, Israel Law Review, 31 (1997), 169–82.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, W., ‘Art. 6 MRK: Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte vom 19. Dezember 1966’, in Gollwitzer, W. (ed.), Menschenrechte im Strafverfahren: MRK und IPBPR, Berlin, De Gruyter (2005), 37–60.Google Scholar
Gössel, K. H., ‘Wahrheitsermittlung’, in Fahl, C., Müller, E., Satzger, H. and Swoboda, S. (eds.), Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70. Geburtstag, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2015), 737–45.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R. and Gottfredson, D. M., Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion, Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media (1988).Google Scholar
Grajewski, J., Przebieg procesu karnego, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2008).Google Scholar
Gramckow, H., ‘Prosecutor organization and operations in the United States’, in Open Society Institute Sofia (ed.), Promoting Prosecutorial Accountability, Independence and Effectiveness – Comparative Research, Sofia, Open Society Institute Sofia (2008), 385–429.Google Scholar
Green, B. A. and Zacharias, F. C., ‘Prosecutorial Neutrality’, Wisconsin Law Review (2004), 837–904.Google Scholar
Groenhuijsen, M. and Simmelink, J. B., ‘Criminal Procedure in the Netherlands’, in Vogler, R. and Huber, B. (eds.), Criminal Procedure in Europe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008), 377–481.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, T. and Tylman, J., Polskie Postępowanie Karne, 6th edn, New York, Lexis Nexis (2007).Google Scholar
Guinchard, S. and Buisson, J., Procédure pénal, 4th edn. New York, Lexis Nexis (2008).Google Scholar
Harding, C. and Dingwall, G., Diversion in the Criminal Process, London, Sweet and Maxwell (1998).Google Scholar
Harris, D. A., ‘The Interaction and Relationship between Prosecutors and Police Officers in the US, and How this Affects Police Reform Efforts’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2011), 54–66.Google Scholar
Heinze, A., International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2014).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., ‘Conceptions of the Trial in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., The Trial on Trial, II: Judgment and Calling to Account, Oxford, Hart (2006), 223–43.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R., ‘Fairness Beyond the Adversary System’, Fordham Law Review, 85 (2017), 2081–95.Google Scholar
Howell, K. B., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion and the Duty to Seek Justice in an Overburdened Criminal Justice System’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 27 (2014), 286–334.Google Scholar
Hungerford-Welch, P., Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, 7th edn, London, Routledge-Cavendish (2009).Google Scholar
Ingraham, B. L., The Structure of Criminal Procedure, New York, Greenwood Press (1987).Google Scholar
Innocence Commission for Virginia, A Vision for Justice: Report and Recommendations Regarding Wrongful Convictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Arlington, Innocence Commission for Virginia (2005).Google Scholar
Jackson, R. H., ‘The Federal Prosecutor’, American Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 31 (1940), 3–6.Google Scholar
Jacoby, J. E., ‘The American Prosecutor: From Appointive to Elective Status’, Prosecutor, 31 (1997), 33–8.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘The Function of Public Prosecution within the Criminal Justice System’, in Jehle, J.-M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe, Berlin, Springer (2006), 3–25.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘Was und wie häufig sind Fehlurteile?’, Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 7 (2013), 220–9.Google Scholar
Jones, C. E., ‘Here Comes the Judge: A Model for Judicial Oversight and Regulation of the Brady Disclosure Duty’, Hofstra Law Review, 46 (2018), 87–138.Google Scholar
Jordan, G., Kaplan, A. B., Beety, V. and Findley, K. A., ‘Contemporary Perspectives on Wrongful Conviction: An Introduction to the 2016 Innocence Network Conference, San Antonio, Texas’, Hofstra Law Review, 45 (2016), 365–71.Google Scholar
Juy-Birmann, R., ‘The German System’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University Press (2002), 292–347.Google Scholar
Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J., Kerr, O. S. and Primus, E. B. (eds.), Basic Criminal Procedure: Cases, Comments and Questions, 12th edn, Eagan, Thomson West (2008).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Wood, A. W., New Haven, Yale University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. E., ‘Private Financing of Criminal Prosecutions and the Differing Protections of Liberty and Equality in the Criminal Justice System, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 24 (1996), 665–707.Google Scholar
Kreag, J., ‘Disclosing Prosecutorial Misconduct’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 72 (2019), 297–352.Google Scholar
Krey, V., German Criminal Procedure, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer (2009).Google Scholar
Kubicek, T. L., Adversarial Justice: America’s Court System on Trial, New York, Algora (2006).Google Scholar
Kuczyńska, H., The Accusation Model before the International Criminal Court, Berlin, Springer (2015).Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H., ‘Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany’, University of Chicago Law Review, 41 (1974), 439–67.Google Scholar
Langer, M., ‘Rethinking Plea Bargaining: The Practice and Reform of Prosecutorial Adjudication in American Criminal Procedure’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 33 (2006), 223–99.Google Scholar
Levine, K. L., ‘The Intimacy Discount: Prosecutorial Discretion, Privacy, and Equality in the Statutory Rape Caseload’, Emory Law Journal, 55 (2006), 691–750.Google Scholar
Lewis, C., ‘The Prosecution Service Function within the English Criminal Justice System’, in Jehle, J.-M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems, Berlin, Springer (2006), 151–84.Google Scholar
Lippke, R., ‘Criminal Prosecutors: Experts or Elected Officials?’, in Ryberg, J. and Roberts, J. (eds.), Popular Punishment: On the Normative Significance of Public Opinion for Penal Theory, Oxford University Press (2012), 163–82.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M., ‘Prosecutors as Judges’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67 (2010), 1413–532.Google Scholar
Lynch, G. E., ‘Our Administrative System of Criminal Justice’, Fordham Law Review, 66 (1998), 2117–51.Google Scholar
McDermott, Y., Fairness in International Trials, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
McDonald, W. F., Rossman, H. H. and Cramer, J. A., Police–Prosecutor Relations in the United States – Executive Summary, Washington, National Institute of Justice, Georgetown University Law Center (1982).Google Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P., ‘Deontology’, in Copp, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford University Press (2006), 424–58.Google Scholar
Mantovani, F., Diritto Penale, Parte Generale, 10th edn, Milanofiori Assago, Wolters Kluwer (2017).Google Scholar
Markovits, D., A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Marmor, A., Interpretation and Legal Theory, 2nd edn, Oxford, Hart (2005).Google Scholar
Marsh, I., Criminal Justice, Abingdon, London, Routledge (2004).Google Scholar
Mathias, E., Les Procureurs du droit: de l’impartialité du ministère public en France et en Allemagne, Paris, CNRS Éditions (1999).Google Scholar
May, L., Global Justice and Due Process, Cambridge University Press (2011).Google Scholar
Mégret, F., ‘International Prosecutors: Accountability and Ethics’, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper No. 18 (2008).Google Scholar
Mégret, F., ‘The Anxieties of International Criminal Justice’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2016), 197–221.Google Scholar
Mittermaier, C. J. A., Die Lehre vom Beweise im deutschen Strafprozesse, Darmstadt, Johann Wilhelm Heyer’s Verlagshandlung (1834).Google Scholar
Mou, Y., ‘Beyond Legitimate Grounds: External Influences and the Discretionary Power Not to Prosecute in the People’s Republic of China’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 115–40.Google Scholar
Na, C., Choo, T. and Klingfuss, J. A., ‘The Causes and Consequences of Job-Related Stress among Prosecutors’, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43 (2018), 329–53.Google Scholar
Nejdl, C. S. and Pettitt, K., ‘Wrongful Convictions and Their Causes’, Northern Illinois University Law Review, 37 (2017), 401–19Google Scholar
Nicolson, D., ‘Making Lawyers Moral? Ethical Codes and Moral Character’, Legal Studies, 25 (2005), 601–26.Google Scholar
Panzavolta, M., ‘Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 30 (2005), 577–624.Google Scholar
Parrillo, N. R., Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in American Government, 1780–1940, New Haven, Yale University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Peters, K., Strafprozeß, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1985).Google Scholar
Pizzi, W. T., ‘Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in the United States’, Ohio State Law Journal, 54 (1993), 1325–73.Google Scholar
Pizzi, W. T., Trials without Truth, New York University Press (1999).Google Scholar
Pradel, J., ‘France’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 105–36.Google Scholar
Preuß, T., ‘Das Strafbefehlsverfahren’, Zeitschrift für das juristische Studium (2017), 176–87.Google Scholar
Rapping, J. A., ‘Who’s Guarding the Henhouse? How the American Prosecutor Came to Devour Those He Is Sworn to Protect’, Washburn Law Journal, 51 (2012), 513–69.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press (1972).Google Scholar
Rawls, J., Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Reydams, L., ‘Universal Criminal Jurisdiction: The Belgian State of Affairs’, Criminal Law Forum, 11 (2000), 183–216.Google Scholar
Rolinski, K., ‘Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit: Garant der Wahrheitsfindung?’, in Esser, R., Günther, H.-L., Jäger, C., Mylonopoulos, C. and Öztürk, B. (eds.), Festschrift für Hans-Heiner Kühne, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2013), 297–316.Google Scholar
Romero, M., ‘Profit-Driven Prosecution and the Competitive Bidding Process’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107 (2017), 161–212.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Schünemann, B., Strafverfahrensrecht, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Ruggeri, S., ‘Investigative and Prosecutorial Discretion in Criminal Matters: The Contribution of the Italian Experience’, in Caianiello, M. and Hodgson, J. (eds.), Discretionary Criminal Justice in a Comparative Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press (2015), 59–88.Google Scholar
Sacher, M., ‘Diskurstheorie als Legitimation für die Absprachen im Strafverfahren?’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 957–68.Google Scholar
Safferling, C., Towards an International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Safferling, C., International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Scalia, L. J., America’s Jeffersonian Experiment: Remaking State Constitutions, 1820–1850, Northern Illinois University Press (1999).Google Scholar
Schmitt, B., ‘Einleitung’, in Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B. (eds.), Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 62nd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Schmitt, B., ‘§ 160’, in Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B. (eds.), Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 62nd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Sheehan, A. V. et al., Criminal Procedure, 2nd edn, Edinburgh, Lexis Nexis (2003).Google Scholar
Simonson, J., ‘The Place of “The People” in Criminal Procedure’, Columbia Law Review, 119 (2019), 249–307.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Nature and Function of Prosecutorial Power’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106 (2016), 473–520.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Changing Political Landscape for Prosecutors’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14 (2017), 647–74.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘Unpacking the Relationship between Prosecutors and Democracy in the United States’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-National Study, Cambridge University Press (2017), 250–75.Google Scholar
Sklansky, D. A., ‘The Problems with Prosecutors’, Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (2018), 451–69.Google Scholar
Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., The English Legal System, 18th edn, London, New York, Routledge (2017).Google Scholar
Slobogin, S., ‘Lessons from Inquisitorialism’, Southern California Law Review, 87 (2014), 699–731.Google Scholar
Smart, U., Criminal Justice, London, Sage Publications (2006).Google Scholar
Soubise, L. and Woolley, A., ‘Prosecutors and Justice’, Fordham International Law Journal, 42 (2018), 587–626.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘Introduction’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Process, Cambridge University Press (2002), 1–80.Google Scholar
Spielmann, A. and Spielmann, D., ‘Luxembourg’, in Wyngaert, C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths (2000), 261–78.Google Scholar
Stone, H. F., ‘Progress in Law Improvement in the United States’, American Bar Association Journal, 10 (1924), 633–37.Google Scholar
Stuntz, W. J., ‘The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law’, Michigan Law Review, 100 (2001), 505–600.Google Scholar
Swart, B., ‘Damaška and the Faces of International Criminal Justice’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6 (2008), 87–114.Google Scholar
Taguchi, M., ‘Der Prozessgegenstand im japanischen Strafprozessrecht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 2 (2008), 70–5.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., Comparative Criminal Procedure, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing (2002).Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., ‘Plea-Bargaining, Negotiating Confessions and Consensual Resolution of Criminal Cases’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 11 (2007), 1–54.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C., ‘Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 11 (2007), 1–54.Google Scholar
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, The Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offences in England and Wales, London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1981).Google Scholar
Thomas, G. C. III, ‘Where Have All the Innocents Gone?’, Arizona Law Review, 60 (2018), 865–90.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. C., ‘It Takes a Community to Prosecute’, Notre Dame Law Review, 77 (2002), 321–71.Google Scholar
Tonry, M., ‘Determinants of Penal Policies’, Crime & Justice, 36 (2007), 1–48.Google Scholar
Tuinstra, T., Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law, Berlin, Springer (2009).Google Scholar
Tulkens, F., ‘Negotiated Justice’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University Press (2002), 641–87.Google Scholar
Utter, R. F. and Spitzer, H., The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide, Oxford University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Vogler, R. and Huber, B. (eds.), Criminal Procedure in Europe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008).Google Scholar
Volk, K. and Engländer, A., Grundkurs StPO, 9th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Vriend, K., Avoiding a Full Criminal Trial, The Hague, Asser, Springer (2016).Google Scholar
Waltoś, S., Proces Karny [Penal Proceedings], 9th edn, Warsaw, Lexis Nexis (2008).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., Anklagepflicht und Ermessen. Die Stellung der Staatsanwalts zwischen Legalitäts- und Opportunitätsprinzip nach deutschem und amerikanischem Recht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1978).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do it?’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 36 (2011), 389–416.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘A Judge by Another Name? Comparative Perspectives on the Role of the Public Prosecutor’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012), 377–391.Google Scholar
Welty, J., ‘Private Citizens Initiating Criminal Charges’, North Carolina Criminal Law, 9 April 2015, available at https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/private-citizens-initiating-criminal-charges/.Google Scholar
Weßlau, E., ‘Wahrheit und Legenden: die Debatte über den adversatorischen Strafprozess’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70 Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 995–1018.Google Scholar
Yoffe, E., ‘Innocence Is Irrelevant’, The Atlantic, September 2017, available at www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/.Google Scholar
Zacharias, F. C., ‘Structuring the Ethics of Prosecutorial Trial Practice: Can Prosecutors Do Justice?’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 44 (1991), 45–114;Google Scholar
Zalman, M., ‘The Adversary System and Wrongful Conviction’, in Huff, C. R. and Killias, M. (eds.), Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia, Temple University Press (2008), 71–91.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×