| Abstrakt: |
Under the existing system of pleading in the federal courts, criminal indictments are subject to significantly less scrutiny than civil complaints. Unlike complaints, indictments can include strikingly little factual detail and, instead, may rely on conclusory and legalistic allegations. In previous work, I argued that that pleading balance is misguided as a matter of law, without evaluating normative and policy arguments. I observed, however, that if we are to retain a pleading regime that is legally questionable, those arguments should provide robust support for that regime. This Article, accordingly, takes up the question of what the normative and policy considerations say about our existing pleading system, and it concludes that those factors counsel powerfully in favor of raising the criminal pleading standard to at least align with the civil standard. Doing so would generate a host of benefits for criminal defendants and the justice system, including: improving defendants' access to information; reducing informational asymmetry between the parties; giving defendants an effective method of raising merits challenges to prosecutions; promoting greater clarity in the law; preventing overly aggressive, wrong, or capricious prosecutorial positions; protecting against erroneous guilty pleas; clarifying the scope of criminal cases; and helping to correct a problematic disparity between the protections criminal and civil defendants receive. Further, there are few downsides or drawbacks to such a reform. Thus, this Article seeks to show--and to persuade the powers that be--that the time has come for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
