IN THEORY PROSECUTORS ARE NEUTRAL AGENTS WHO, BECAUSE THEY ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC MORALITY AND SAFETY, ARE SUBJECT TO FEW RESTRAINTS. PROSECUTORS DECIDE WHETHER A CASE WILL EXIST, SEEK EVIDENCE AND DECIDE WHAT (IF ANYTHING) TO DO WITH IT, AND DECIDE WHAT CRIME, BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE POLICE, THE STATE WILL CLAIM OCCURRED. AT ANY TIME IN THE COURSE OF A PROSECUTION, THE PROSECUTOR MAY MOVE TO DISMISS THE CASE. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PROSECUTORS' ABUSE OF THEIR POWERS HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE MID 1960'S. EXAMPLES ARE CITED OF PROSECUTORS' DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. CASE EXAMPLES INDICATING THAT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IS PARTICULARLY EVIDENT IN POLITICALLY SENSITIVE SITUATIONS ARE DESCRIBED. THE TENDENCY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO PROCEED IN POLITICAL CASES AS THOUGH THEY 'KNOW' WHO IS GUILTY AND NEED ONLY TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE IS NOTED, AS IS THE FAILURE OF JUDGES, POLICE, AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT PROSECUTORIAL ABUSES. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE ARE SAID TO BE THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE PROSECUTOR'S POSITION AND PROSECUTORS' SENSE OF THEIR MISSION AS AVENGING ANGELS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGITIMATE DOUBLE STANDARD IN CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD BE, BUT IS NOT, THAT DEFENSE LAWYERS DO ANYTHING ETHICAL TO WIN FOR THEIR CLIENTS, WHILE PROSECUTORS, BECAUSE OF THEIR POWER, ARE HELD TO MUCH HIGHER STANDARDS. (LKM)