Should the United States prosecute computer fraud crimes that occur extraterritorially? This Article examines traditional methods used to determine whether jurisdiction is appropriate for prosecution of criminal conduct that occurs outside the United States. Focusing specifically on computer fraud crimes, the question becomes whether traditional methodologies should remain applicable in light of the ease of use and worldwide accessibility of computers. Although the Article discusses some of the ongoing international discussions related to jurisdiction of computer crimes, it focuses on national issues that can remain irrespective of the adoption of international treaties. This Article stresses the importance of tempering prosecution of extraterritorial computer fraud acts.

The point of this essay can be summed up in the following set of propositions: that the cultivation of professional values - certain attitudes and habits of heart that are thought critical to the practice and culture of the profession - is essential to the education of lawyers; that the cultivation of professionalism necessarily entails the nurturing of a sense of professional self-consciousness and constructive introspection, and an attitude of respect and responsibility towards others - what some would call "caring;" that law schools can go a long way towards encouraging their students in the cultivation of these virtues by creating within the law school community an atmosphere that encourages its faculty to interact with students in ways that take seriously the need to teach professionalism, whether by intellectual engagement with these issues, by example, or otherwise; that such interactions necessarily require faculty time, energy, and availability; and that the competing demands placed on law faculty will prevent that attention from being paid to students unless the faculty and administrative leadership within universities and law schools gives appropriate value and recognition to excellence in this aspect of legal education.

This Essay examines the appropriate line in legislative drafting between the overly generic fraud statute (e.g., mail fraud) and the addition of an overly specific statute, such as "Beanie Baby" fraud. Clearly, issues of federalism warrant consideration to determine whether the conduct belongs in the realm of the state and local prosecutor or more aptly in the federal system. Likewise, the scope of the federal statute needs to be clear in order to avoid ambiguity, overbreadth, and application of the Rule of Lenity.

This Essay looks to a third factor for considering the propriety of the legislation: Whether the statute is designed to advance the historic roles provided to each of the three branches of government. When legislation accords a fair balancing to the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies, the appropriate line between the generic and specific statute is achieved.

This article, written in 1999, reflects on the timing of federal criminal discovery, specifically witness statements held by prosecutors. It initially examines the Jencks case, the Jencks Act, and Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It describes a survey conducted by the author that examined practice throughout the United States in providing Jencks material to defense counsel in federal criminal cases. Although it was found that most prosecutors provide materials to the defense in advance of the witness testifying, the survey also showed the lack of uniformity in the discovery process. The defense is placed at a serious disadvantage, especially in white collar cases, when they receive discovery late in the trial. This article argues that in order for the prosecution and defense to be “fairly evenly matched,” the discovery process needs to be opened.

Fraud is an integral aspect of several criminal statutes. This article describes the spectrum of fraud offenses, noting the amorphous nature of the "concept" of fraud.

The Article initially considers the definition of fraud. It looks at when fraud serves as the object of an offense. It focuses here on mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to defraud. Finally it examines how best to limit fraud statutes.

Although some may believe that certain generic fraud statutes need to be left as "stopgap devices" until the legislature has the opportunity to pass "particularized legislation," such a view transfers the decision-making authority to the executive. This Article advocates for increased specificity in fraud statutes, although it does not call for increased criminalization.