As a general rule, the police are supposed to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of private property; any search that is conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. This means that the police officers will later have to justify the search-and why a warrant wasn't obtained first-if the defendant challenges it in court.

•  It is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and;
•  items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.

To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past.

Consent searches
If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant.

Searches that accompany an arrest
When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft.

Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public
The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members.

Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence
A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search.

"Hot pursuit" searches
Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime.

•  In some situations, the police must show probable cause to a judge who issues a warrant. In many special circumstances, however, the police may be able to conduct a search without a warrant. In fact, the majority of searches are "warrantless."

Police may extend the search beyond the specified area of the property or include other items in the search beyond those listed in the warrant if it is necessary to:

•  Ensure their safety or the safety of others;
•  Prevent the destruction of evidence;
•  Discover more about possible evidence or stolen items that are in plain view; or
•  Hunt for evidence or stolen items that, based upon their initial search of the specified area, they believe may be in a different location on the property.

Example: The police have a warrant to search your basement for evidence of a drug manufacturing operation. On their way through your house to go down to the basement, they see a cache of guns sitting on the kitchen table. They may take the guns in order to ensure their safety while searching your basement.

•  Police may search your person and the immediate surroundings without a warrant when they are placing you under arrest.

•  If a person is arrested in a residence, police may make a "protective sweep" of the residence and make a "cursory visual inspection" of places where an accomplice may be hiding. In order to do so, the police must have a reasonable belief that an accomplice may be around.

Example: The police arrest you in your living room on charges of murder. They may open the door of your coat closet to make sure that no one else is hiding there, but may not open your medicine cabinet because an accomplice could not hide there.

•  When you are being taken to jail, police may perform an "inventory search" of items you have with you without a warrant. This search may include your car in order to make a list of all items inside.

•  Police may search without a warrant if they reasonably fear for their safety or for the public's safety.

Example: If the police drive past your house on a regular patrol of the neighborhood and see you, in your open garage, with ten cases of dynamite and a blowtorch, they may search your garage without a warrant.

•  If it's necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, the police may search without a warrant.

•  Police may perform a search, without a warrant, if they are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect who they have probable cause to believe the suspect went in.

Example: If the police are chasing you from the scene of a murder and you run into your apartment in an attempt to get away from them, they may follow you into the apartment and search the area without a crime, police may perform a pat-down of your outer clothing—what is called a "frisk"—if they reasonably believe that you may be concealing a weapon.

•  The police may not submit an affidavit in support of obtaining a search warrant if they did not have a reasonable belief in the truth of the statements in the affidavit.

•  Unless there is a reasonable suspicion that it contains evidence, illegal items, or stolen goods, the police may not search your vehicle. If your car has been confiscated by the police, however, they may search it.

•  Unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a criminal activity, the police may not "stop and frisk" you. If they have a reasonable suspicion, they may pat down your clothing if they are concerned that you might be hiding a weapon.

•  Prosecution witnesses are biased against the defendant and therefore are lying or grossly exaggerating.

•  Prosecution witnesses are mistaken in their observations because the lighting was bad, they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or they were too far away.

•  Evidence from police laboratories is unreliable because the machines were not properly maintained or the technicians were not properly trained.

•  Prosecution witnesses are lying to get a good deal on the criminal charges they themselves are facing (witnesses are often criminals who have been offered a deal if they testify against the defendant).

What these arguments have in common is that they do not depend on defense evidence. Rather, they rely on the presumption of innocence and prosecutor's failure to overcome it by proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

•  If the defendant has previously been convicted of a crime, the prosecutor may be able to bring this fact out-but only if the defendant testifies. Evidence of a previous crime may cause some jurors to think that the defendant is guilty of the current crime, too.

•  If the defendant testifies, the prosecutor may be able to bring out other information that tarnishes the defendant's reputation and discredits his testimony.

•  Some defendants have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.

•  The defendant may have a perfectly good story which would nevertheless sound fishy to the average jury in that particular locale.

•  Who was the aggressor?
•  Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
•  If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable-if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.

When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.

When the officer approaches your window, you may want to ask (with all the politeness you can muster) why you were stopped. If you are at all concerned that the person who stopped you is not actually a police officer (for example, if the car that pulled you over is unmarked), you should ask to see the officer's photo identification along with her badge. If you still have doubts, you can ask that the officer call a supervisor to the scene or you can request that you be allowed to follow the officer to a police station.

If the officer has reason to think that you pose a danger to her safety, she is allowed to search you and the immediate area around you (this may include the passenger compartment of your car and its contents -- such as bags or a briefcase -- and your glove compartment). For example, a driver who is belligerent and threatening might be asked to step out of the car for a pat-down while the passenger compartment, including a duffel bag, is searched for weapons.

If a law enforcement officer suspects that a passenger is conducting any illegal activity or holding contraband, the officer has the right to search that passenger and his or her belongings.

The police are required, however, to follow fair and standardized procedures when they search your car, and may not stop you and impound your car simply to perform a search.

In addition, more time in prison could allow for more complete rehabilitation because the offender could stay in treatment programs for a longer period of time. Batterers are more likely to change the controlling behavior that leads to domestic abuse if they participate in long-term intensive educational programs. Sex offenders may benefit from multi-level treatment plans spread out over a period of time. In prisons with educational programs, offenders who stay long enough may receive high school or college degrees or learn a trade, which will equip them to lead a productive, law-abiding life. However, some states do not provide adequate resources for these rehabilitation programs.

Longer sentences do not appear to deter the general public from criminal activity. Many times, it is the likelihood of getting caught that deters a person from criminal activity, not the length of the sentence. Many crimes are committed on impulse, and the threat of a lengthy sentence does not even enter the offender's mind.

Finally, the cost of longer sentences in terms of tax dollars is very high. If sentences are lengthened, new prisons and jails will need to be built to accommodate offenders who would be incarcerated under sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences.

Whether the offender has the intent necessary to be convicted of attempt depends on the mental state required by the underlying crime. If a person's actual intention at the time he or she attacked the victim was to cause bodily harm, he or she cannot be convicted of attempted murder if the victim does not die. (However, he could be convicted of the actual crime of murder if the victim died, even if his intention was only to cause bodily harm.) Likewise, a person whose plan to steal fails can be convicted of attempted theft, which requires the intention to deprive another of his or her property permanently, only if he or she had the same intention at the time the crime was attempted.

Like most crimes, attempt requires a "bad act" as well as a bad intention. Therefore, the government must prove the offender engaged in conduct that moved toward committing the crime. The exact nature of the act needed to meet this "preparation" requirement varies from case to case, depending on individual facts. For example, a person who checked in at the ticket counter of an airport and sat in the waiting area with a gun in his pocket could be convicted of the crime of attempting to board an airplane with a gun. A person who planned to rob a bank messenger and drove around looking for him on his regular route, but did not find him, and did nothing else would not necessarily be guilty of attempted robbery.

The punishment for the crime of attempt can be the same as the punishment for the completed crime. However, most jurisdictions make some distinction and provide for a lesser punishment for attempt. For instance, some states provide that the punishment for attempted first-degree theft will be the same as the crime of second-degree theft. The Model Penal Code, which is a source of many states' criminal statutes, generally requires the same punishment for attempt as the punishment for the underlying crime on the rationale that a person who attempts a crime has shown himself to be just as much in need of corrective sanctions as the one who actually completes a crime.

The base offense level under the federal guidelines differs for different drugs and for different amounts of the same drug. For instance, if the conviction is for the crime of manufacturing 300 kilograms of heroin, the base offense level is forty-two. However, if the conviction is for manufacturing 300 kilograms of cocaine, the base offense level is thirty-eight. Crack is a form of cocaine and listed on the same schedule of controlled substances. However, the quantities of crack needed to impose a certain sentence are much less than the quantity of powdered cocaine. For example, a person convicted of the crime of delivering 5 grams of crack will receive a sentence in the federal system of five to forty years. To receive that same sentence, a person would have to be convicted of delivering 500 grams of powdered cocaine.

(1) having a blood alcohol content above the limit set by law, or;
(2) driving under the influence of alcohol.

To find a person guilty under the first definition, a jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded a certain amount. In most states the legal limit is .08 (or 8 percent). Therefore, if it is proven that the person's BAC at the time of the incident was .08 or greater, he or she can be convicted of drunk driving, regardless of how much alcohol was actually consumed.

In contrast, the second definition does not refer to any particular BAC; it focuses on the driving behavior of the person. If the person's driving is impaired by the consumption of alcohol, he or she can be found guilty of drunk driving. Instead of presenting evidence of the BAC to a jury, the prosecution seeking a conviction under this definition generally presents testimony about the person's driving and consumption of alcohol. A police officer will often describe the impaired driving that lead him to pull the person over and the person's ability (or lack thereof) to perform field sobriety tests, such as walking a straight line. Evidence is also usually presented concerning the person's consumption of alcohol. If the jury then concludes that the prosecution has met its burden of proof, it will convict the person of drunk driving. A susceptible person may exhibit impaired driving after one drink and therefore be convicted of drunk driving.

In addition, Congress has become increasingly involved in the "war on drugs" with the creation of various drug statutes. Due to the severity of the penalties, often, local prosecutors prefer to have drug charges prosecuted in federal court rather than file state charges. Most federal laws have as their rationale that the particular crime addressed needs a uniform response nationwide, and due to the nature of drug crimes (particularly distribution), it is difficult to prosecute drug crimes on a state-by-state basis.

Examples of successful federal criminal legislation are the federal gun laws and federal computer laws. The federal gun laws provide uniformity and the federal computer laws make it possible to punish Internet crime.

The U.S. Constitution has always played a role in criminal law because it defines important individual rights that must be preserved even in a state prosecution involving a state crime. The Constitution guarantees a right to a trial by jury in open court, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to remain silent (on grounds of self-incrimination), the presumption of innocence, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment. States are required to pay for attorneys for indigent offenders, and federal agencies provide oversight to state prisons to ensure compliance with these constitutional requirements.

Another challenge to keeping the proceedings secret arises because the prohibition against disclosure often does not apply to a person subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. Witnesses are free to discuss their testimony with the media or with anyone else, unless the judge expressly orders them not to.

Persons who are the subject of a grand jury proceeding are not entitled to any notice regarding the scope of the investigation or the nature of the incidents under consideration. They are generally not allowed to have an attorney present with them in the grand jury room, but may be permitted to leave from time to time to consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room.

In earlier days, special crimes that only applied to children did exist. These crimes were the so-called status offenses and punished behavior that would not be criminal if committed by an adult. Status offenses included running away from home, skipping school, disobeying parents, and breaking curfew. The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act made receipt of federal funds conditioned on eliminating status offenses, and most states have repealed any status offenses. However, these behaviors may still trigger an investigation by child protective services to determine if the child needs assistance from the court or social service agencies.

Typically, an offender has been sentenced to an indeterminate or range of years in prison. After the offender has served the minimum amount of time authorized, the parole board decides if the offender is ready to be released from incarceration to finish out the sentence on parole. Parole boards consider the nature and seriousness of the crime, the views of the victim, the progress the offender made in prison, how crowded the prison is, and whether the offender has a someplace to go in the community. If parole is granted, the offender will have to abide by terms and conditions similar to those for probation for a specified period of time. If he or she completes the parole period, the criminal sentence is discharged.

Both probation and parole can be revoked if the offender commits another crime or seriously violates one of the conditions of release. The revocation proceeding requires written notice to the offender, an opportunity to explain and call witnesses, an impartial decision-maker, and a written decision stating the reasons for revocation. If parole is revoked, the parolee goes back to prison and serves the remainder of his or her sentence in jail or prison.

Many prosecutors are elected officials and as such can be voted out of office if the public does not like the emphasis of their office. Some prosecutors, for instance, may focus most of their efforts and the office's resources combating property crime, while others may focus on domestic abuse. If the electorate does not like the particular goals of the prosecutor, it can end the practice by failing to reelect the individual or by seeking to have them removed from office.

Many modern-day penal codes no longer use the term "rape", but instead use sexual abuse or sexual assault to define the prohibited acts. Rape is covered by these statutes and may be designated as sexual abuse in the first degree. However, most sexual assault statutes cover intercourse as well as other sexual acts and apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Generally, husbands can be charged with sexual assault of their wives, although they may receive a lighter sentence than non-marital sexual assault. Lesser offenses, such as unwanted touching or lascivious acts may be included in the definition of sexual assault.

The RICO Act is generally thought of as a white collar crime prevention statute. It punishes anyone who engages in a pattern of racketeering to generate income to buy a business or to conduct a business. The pattern of racketeering refers to at least two criminal acts listed in the statute that have a relationship to each other and occur within ten years of each other. Originally passed to control organized crime, RICO has been applied to drug dealers, and other non-organized crime defendants.

A crime must be clearly defined in order to pass scrutiny under the federal Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A vague description of the crime or a lack of specific elements or intent needed for committing the crime leaves a person without knowledge of exactly what is prohibited. In order to be a crime, the prohibited conduct must include both a "mens rea" or intent and an "actus reus" or bad act. Accidentally hitting somebody when you draw back the baseball bat to swing at a ball is not a crime because it lacks required intent. Wishing someone would drop dead is not a crime because it lacks the bad act. Examples of crimes and topics of interest in criminal law include:

•  Drug violations are criminalized in both federal and state criminal justice codes, which typically list controlled substances, which are prohibited under any circumstances or may not be used except under a doctor's care. When a person uses one of these substances in violation of a criminal statute, he or she has committed a crime.

•  DWI/DUI means "driving while intoxicated" or "driving while under the influence" and refers to the crime of drunk driving. This crime usually includes driving while using drugs or alcohol and operating a car or other kind of motorized vehicle, such as a motorcycle or boat. Drunk driving is defined by each state's criminal code.

•  Federal jurisdiction refers to authority of a federal court to hear cases involving crimes charged under federal law. Crime has traditionally been the domain of individual states, but Congress is authorized through its powers under the commerce, postal, and taxing clauses in the Constitution to make criminal laws covering those areas. While a person can be prosecuted for the same incident under state and federal law, most often the choice of whether to bring an action in state or federal court is based upon resources available to investigate and prosecute the crime and on sentencing options.

•  Felonies are crimes punishable by over one year in prison. Most felonies are also punishable by a fine, but the critical determination for considering a crime a felony is the prison sentence.

•  Fraud is not a separate crime, but is an important part of property crimes such as embezzlement and false pretenses. The lawbreaker must knowingly and intentionally deceive the victim in some manner for the fraud element to be satisfied.

•  Grand jury proceedings are a method used by prosecutors to bring criminal charges against a criminal suspect. A prosecutor will often convene a grand jury when investigating complicated criminal matters.

•  Juvenile crimes are typically called delinquent acts and handled in the juvenile court system. The major purpose of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate the offender, and many sentences require counseling or other family intervention. Juvenile court jurisdiction typically ends when a person turns eighteen.

•  Misdemeanors are crimes with a punishment of less than one year in prison. Many crimes, such as theft, have degrees of seriousness with the most serious being felonies and the less serious being misdemeanors. Often, procedures used in misdemeanor prosecutions are abbreviated and in some cases, do not require a trial.

•  Parole and probation are used in the sentencing phase of the criminal-justice system. Parole refers to the condition of supervised release that occurs after an offender has spent time in prison. Probation is a sentence imposed instead of prison and is usually subject to terms and conditions designed to make the offender a law-abiding citizen.

•  Prosecution refers to the government's case against the lawbreaker. A prosecutor - the lawyer presenting the government's case - has complete discretion to decide whether to bring a charge against an alleged offender and must prove all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

•  RICO refers to the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act passed in 1970 as part of a larger organized crime bill. The purpose of the act is to combat the infiltration of organized crime into legitimate businesses, but also it has been used to prosecute individuals other than just those associated with organized crime.

•  Sex offenses include much more than the common-law crime of rape, which historically was limited to unlawful sexual intercourse by a man against a woman through the use of force or the immediate threat of force. Most states prohibit lesser invasions, such as unwanted touching, as well as prosecution of spouses for sexual assault. In addition, sex offenses include crimes that are defined based on the status of the victim, such as a child or therapy patient.

•  Traffic violations may be crimes or may be classified as infractions, which are generally not considered part of the criminal law. In jurisdictions where they are crimes, they are typically considered the lowest level of misdemeanor and are only punished by a fine. However, some traffic violations can rise to the level of more serious crimes, such as vehicular homicide or leaving the scene of an accident.

•  Victims' rights refers to a body of emerging law that focuses on the needs and concerns of crime victims. Victims now have rights, for example, to information about the prosecution of the crime committed against them, to receive counseling and compensation, and to participate in the sentencing process.

•  White collar crimes refer to the group of property crimes typically committed to gain a business or professional advantage. White collar crimes include mail fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, embezzlement, tax crimes, and environmental pollution.

•  Observation: A police officer will pull you over if he notices that you are driving erratically -- swerving, speeding, failing to stop or even driving too slowly. Of course, you may have a good explanation for your driving (tiredness, for example), but an officer is unlikely to buy your story if he smells alcohol on your breath or notices slurred words or unsteady movements.

•  Sobriety tests: If an officer suspects that you are under the influence, he will probably ask you to get out of the car and perform a series of balance and speech tests, such as standing on one leg, walking a straight line heel-to-toe or reciting a line of letters or numbers. The officer will look closely at your eyes, checking for pupil enlargement or constriction, which can be evidence of intoxication. If you fail these tests, the officer may arrest you or ask you to take a chemical test.

•  Blood-alcohol level: The amount of alcohol in your body is understood by measuring the amount of alcohol in your blood. This measurement can be taken directly, by drawing a sample of your blood, or it can be calculated by applying a mathematical formula to the amount of alcohol in your breath or urine. Some states give you a choice of whether to take a breath, blood or urine test -- others do not. If you test at or above the level of intoxication for your state (.08 to .10 % blood-alcohol concentration, depending on the state), you are presumed to be driving under the influence unless you can convince a judge or jury that your judgment was not impaired and you were not driving dangerously. Defense attorneys often question the validity of the conversion formula when driver's alcohol levels are based on breath or urine tests.

The interplay between constitutional provisions and legislative enactments is regulated by our courts. Courts decide whether or not a particular legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under federal and state constitutional law. What may seem like a slight variation from one case to another can be, in the eyes of a court, the determining factor that leads to a vastly different result. For example, a police officer is frisking a suspect on the street and feels a hard object in the suspect's pocket. Suspecting that the object is a possible weapon, the officer reaches into the pocket and finds both a cardboard cigarette box and a packet of heroin. This action by the police officer -- reaching into the pocket -- would be deemed a permissible search under the rulings of most courts (to protect the officer's safety), and the heroin could be admitted into court as evidence. However, if the object felt by the officer was soft and obviously not a weapon, then reaching into the suspect's pocket might be deemed an illegal search, in which case the heroin couldn't be used as evidence.

Behaviors punishable only by fine are usually not considered crimes at all, but infractions-for example, traffic tickets. But a legislature may on occasion punish behavior only by fine and still provide that it is a misdemeanor -- such as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use in California.

The presumption of innocence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see below), makes it difficult for the government to put people behind bars.

•  The number of children killed with guns increased substantially between 1987 and 1993, while the numbers of other types of homicide remained constant. Between 1980 and 1997, 75 percent of all children age twelve and over who were murdered were killed with a firearm.

•  Children between the ages of twelve and seventeen are twice as likely as adults to be victims of violent crime and three times as likely to be victims of simple assault.

•  Although the total number of multiple-victim school homicides has increased in recent years, the total number of school-associated violent deaths has actually decreased. A student has a less than one in 1,000,000 chance of becoming a victim of a school-associated homicide.

•  A recent survey indicated that the number of high school students bringing weapons to school has declined. Sadly, however, nearly 10 percent still reported having carried a gun on school property during the previous month.

•  The peak hours for violent youth crime are between 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. After school programs can serve several goals including keeping kids out of trouble and keeping youngsters safe.

•  Violent juvenile crime arrest rates have actually declined by 19 percent since 1994.

•  Despite this decrease, children are increasingly being tried as adults and confined in adult jails and prisons. A recent study indicated as much as a 35 percent increase in the confinement of juveniles in adult detention centers.

•  Children detained in adult jails and prisons rather than in juvenile facilities are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, two times more likely to be assaulted by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon.

•  Although minorities make up only about one-third of the youth population, they account for about two-thirds of the juveniles committed to public facilities. Studies have shown that black youths are about twice as likely as white youths to be detained for the same offense, and that they are detained an average of two weeks longer than white youths for the same offenses.

•  You have the right to seek a criminal complaint against the criminal. As soon as you can, you should contact your local law enforcement agency and report the crime to them. After the police investigate the matter, they may choose to arrest the individual. A prosecutor will then determine what crimes should be charged.

•  You have the right to ask for issuance of a criminal complaint if the police decide not to arrest the alleged criminal. You can usually file an application for such a complaint with the court in the jurisdiction (location) where the crime occurred. If the prosecutor, following an investigation, decides not to file the complaint, you can appeal that decision.

•  You have the right to testify in a probable cause hearing to determine if a criminal complaint should be transferred to another court to be heard. In a probable cause hearing, you will be required to answer questions posed by both the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney.

•  You may be called as a witness at trial. If so, you will be required to testify under oath concerning the crime and will be asked questions by both the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney. You have the right to be present in the courtroom during the trial of the defendant.

•  If the defendant is found guilty, you have the right to address the court and jury in person or in writing describing the impact of the crime upon you and your family. You will be allowed to make an "impact statement" regarding what punishment you feel would be appropriate for the defendant. Your victim impact statement is important. It will be used prior to the sentencing phase, and it may be reviewed on appeal. It will also be referenced in any later parole hearings.

•  You may have rights in some states to receive victim services and protections. These rights may include the right to the assistance of a victim's rights worker, personal security and protection services, crisis counseling, emergency transportation services, assistance in the return of recovered personal property, and other rights.

•  You have the right, before, during, and after a trial, to be free from harassment about the case. If you feel that you are being harassed, tell the prosecutor or check to see whether the court has a victim witness representative to help you.

•  In many states, you have the right to be notified if the defendant is going to be released. You may also have the right to be notified if the defendant escapes from prison or jail.

•  You have the right to access to the courts to file a lawsuit if your rights and protections as a victim are not respected.

Despite its ancient origins (England, 1505), the insanity defense remains controversial. Victim-oriented critics point out that a person killed by an insane person is just as dead as a person killed by someone who is sane, and argue that people should be punished for the harm they cause regardless of their mental state. Critics also question the ability of psychiatrists, judges and jurors to determine whether a person suffers from a mental disorder, and to link mental disorders to the commission of crimes.

The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:

•  Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." On the few occasions that the defendant does raise it, judges and jurors rarely support it.

•  Because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context, various definitions are employed. The most popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse": A person who acts out of an irresistible impulse knows that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness, cannot control his actions.

•  Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution, and not released until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.

•  An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.

Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires what's known as "specific intent" (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn't entirely excuse the defendant's actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn't require proof of a specific intent-for example, assault with a deadly weapon instead of assault with the intent to commit murder.