ABSTRACT
This chapter is central to the thesis of this book: once trials are no longer a possibility, the system can handle an enormous number of cases. The chapter begins by describing the extent of the vanishing trial in criminal cases. It then goes into the healthy tensions that exist between investigators and prosecutors when you have a strong trial system. Prosecutors, or their equivalent in any national trial system, are always the naysayers who have to refuse to prosecute cases that have a weakness. This creates tensions with investigators, but it is healthy tension. A strong, reliable, and efficient trial system also forces prosecutors to be choosy about which crimes they prosecute, as trial time is valuable. The chapter ends by discussing whether the United States has a strong trial system and it shows, using Anders v. California, that even the Supreme Court does not think it is a strong system. Anders v. California effectively mandates appellate review of all trials, which is very different from other common law systems where permission to appeal is required.
