A Rand study reported that 60 percent of the felony probationers in two California counties committed new crimes when released on probation. A Massachusetts study showed that a majority of juvenile delinquents and adults convicted of misdemeanors and felonies consistently committed new crimes after being released on probation. Given these statistics, limited jail and court resources, and the risks that recidivist probationers might pose to the community, courts are struggling to protect citizens from repeat criminals without violating the criminals' rights. A survey of case law finds that appellate courts agree that it does not constitute double jeopardy to punish a probationer who commits a new crime for the original crime, after the breach of probation, and the new crime as well. However, appellate courts do not agree on the proper procedures for prosecuting probationers charged with new crimes. The disagreement concerns whether revoking probation before trial on the new crime is subject to prosecutorial abuse and compromises the probationer's fifth amendment rights at the subsequent trial. In responding to this problem, some States have (1) advised or mandated that revocation trials follow trials and (2) granted use immunity if the probation revocation comes before the trial and the defendant testifies on his own behalf. In Maryland, an appellate court allowed a probation revocation for new offenses to precede a trial but ruled that due process required that hearsay testimony, otherwise allowed in such proceedings, be barred if the alleged violation is a new offense. Most appellate courts and State statutes are silent or see no objection to revocation hearings being held before trial. 35 footnotes.