Authored by, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Jinmook Kang, Ames Grawert, and Brianna Seid, this Essay looks at prosecutorial discretion and provides data in concluding that "[b]efore criticizing pro-reform prosecutors who are attempting to create a more equitable justice system that also protects public safety, critics should familiarize themselves with the data to better understand that crime trends in prosecutors’ jurisdictions across the political spectrum tend to be about the same."
Authored by, Rachel Marshall, this Essay is the Introduction to the Symposium Edition of the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law's Symposium on Prosecutorial Discretion.
Kimberly Foxx provides the keynote address at the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law's Symposium on Prosecutorial Discretion.
This Essay by Ellen S. Podgor, explains that while prosecutors are entitled to significant discretionary authority, this discretion is not unlimited—prosecutors are not above the law. The fundamental challenge lies in distinguishing between lawful prosecutorial discretion and unlawful prosecutorial misconduct, both of which are defined by law.
Authored by Hillary Blout, this piece looks at Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing (PIR), an emerging area of law that empowers prosecutors to use their discretion to revisit sentences and request a lesser sentence to the court in cases where the original sentence is no longer in the interest of justice. In this Essay, the author details the emergence of PIR, and synthesizes the results of the first five years of its implementation, looking at a case study of how the law functions in San Diego County, and offer a vision for the future of this
area of law.
Authored by, Fabio De Pasquale, this Essay tells his story as a prosecutor in a corporate matter that resulted in his being the target of a prosecution. Fabio De Pasquale, La Grande Illusione of the International Anti-Corruption Fight, PROMARKET (Sept. 10, 2025).
Authored by, Leslie C. Levin, the author's abstract states: "The United States Attorney General, state attorneys general, and high-ranking officials in their offices, like all lawyers, are subject to rules of professional conduct. Increasingly, when they push the boundaries of these rules and other well-established professional norms, individuals and organizations are filing state lawyer disciplinary grievances against them. While some see troubling conduct by these high-ranking government officials, others view these disciplinary grievances as politically motivated. State lawyer disciplinary authorities often try to avoid addressing these grievances. This article examines why it is nonetheless important for state lawyer disciplinary authorities-which are agencies of state courts-to act on certain grievances. It explains why the political process cannot be relied upon to respond to serious misconduct by these high-ranking legal officers, and why other institutions that could address misconduct are ill-equipped or unlikely to act. The article then describes developments in one state that make it more difficult for some grievants to file actionable grievances and for state disciplinary authorities to pursue certain grievances against these high-ranking officials. It explains why these developments are misguided. It then suggests some ways to accommodate the concerns and competing interests at stake when state disciplinary authorities receive grievances against these officials. The article also identifies some types of professional misconduct by these officials that are sufficiently problematic that state disciplinary authorities should act to address those grievances."
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.