Prosecutors have had the exclusive authority to initiate, dismiss, or reduce criminal charges, as well as the dominant role in plea bargaining. Using these tools, prosecutors have established enforcement priorities and accommodated conflicting statutory, correctional, and constitutional objectives. In addition, they have been nearly autonomous, and judges have tended to withdraw from questioning their charging decisions. The text traces the traditions, legal foundations, and judicial decisions regarding prosecutorial discretion and accountability. It covers these areas of prosecutorial activity: filing writs of nolle prosequi (termination of charge) and dismissals, conferring immunity in exchange for information or assistance, legitimizing the plea bargain, and deviating from the accuracy and voluntary requirements of the plea. The dominant reform approach to prosecutorial discretion has been for county prosecutors to set standards and guidelines rather than follow the traditional approach of having rules emerge on a case-by-case basis. The court's role has been restricted partly because of misunderstanding of the separation of powers doctrine. The author suggests that judges routinely inquire into dismissals and guilty pleas, establish procedures for considering the prosecutors' promise of informal immunity to defendants, and press for standards regarding judicial review of the prosecutor's actions. In addition, courts might give victims a greater stake in the prosecution. Chapter notes are provided.