Is the criminal justice system in the United States fair? Does it serve the ends of justice and public safety, and does it treat all people equally? Prosecutors, endowed with both autonomy and immunity, hold immense power within the criminal justice system. They control secret grand jury proceedings, choose who gets prosecuted, and determine the specific charges against people who are arrested. Moreover, these charges are often based on complex laws that carry long, mandatory minimum prison sentences, which create strong incentives for defendants to plead guilty to lesser crimes-perhaps even to some they did not commit. Indeed, more than 90 percent of both federal and state court cases never go trial but are instead resolved through plea bargaining. The combination of autonomy and secrecy, complicated criminal codes, and mandatory minimum sentences gives prosecutors enormous leverage, and, some critics claim, the opportunity to wield it selectively, relentlessly, and excessively. The results, they charge, are the violation of each citizen's right to a trial by jury, mass incarceration, and public skepticism regarding equal justice. Yet defenders argue that such power is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system and that prosecutorial abuse is rare and exaggerated. As evidence, they point to the declining national crime rate, which has generally been dropping for the past 20 years. Reducing the leverage of prosecutors, they assert, would weaken law and order, make communities less safe, and undermine justice. Do prosecutors have too much power?