Most prosecutors are reactive agents who depend upon the police to bring cases to them. The arresting officer's method of gathering and presenting evidence and the structuring of the arrest report determine the outcome of many cases. In such situations, the deliberations of the courtroom work group become little more than a ratifying process of the definitions previously established by the police officer, rather than an exercise of independent judgment shaped by the work group's own set of concerns. The police role is most obvious in examinations of reasons for dismissals, nolles, and 'no-papering.' However, the police also affect charge reductions and other decisions. In addition, the division of labor between police and the courtroom work group yields divergent and conflicting goals. This tension is reinforced by distance in social backgrounds and other factors. Interorganizational theory is useful in this context in that it explores how organizations with conflicting goals, which still must deal with each other, learn to structure their relationships and to moderate tension and divergent interests. Twelve notes are provided.