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.