Page 18 of 42 103 Minn. L. Rev. 844, *879 [*880] 4. Oversight of Declination Decisions in State Justice Systems State justice systems do not go as far as the federal system does, much less provide the kind of oversight or victim recourse that European systems now offer. And this is so despite the fact that all states have adopted substantial victims' bills of rights, nearly all of which include rights for victims to consult with prosecutors. Most make clear that the consultation right attaches only after the prosecutor decides to file charges. !*° Rights of administrative review are rare. !*! One reason for that is surely structural. The U.S. Department of Justice is a hierarchically organized agency within which all federal prosecutors operate, a structure that enables supervisory and quasi-independent review within the agency. But few states follow that model. Instead, prosecutors in most states are locally elected and operate [*881] autonomously from state justice departments or attorneys general, which generally exercise little, if any, oversight. !2? Administrative review of state prosecutors! charging decisions is simply not feasible without major reorganization of state justice systems. That structural barrier probably explains why state prosecutors’ decisions are functionally immune to administrative oversight, but the lack of judicial oversight has a different origin. In accord with common law tradition, state and federal courts have never meaningfully reviewed public prosecutors’ noncharging decisions. !?3 In particular, they have unambiguously rejected victims' claims of standing to challenge those decisions. !24 A few [*882] limited exceptions prove the rule. In cases of private criminal complaints filed by alleged victims, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania authorize judges to review public prosecutors' decisions not to charge. !?> Even when statutes grant courts the power to review (or even mandate review) of charging and dismissal deci