Now that the Associated Press has dropped its prescription to use "innocent" instead of "not guilty," it's a good time to look at other words and phrases common -- and sometimes commonly misused -- in crime and court stories.

The AP had long counseled using "innocent" for fear the "not" would be dropped from "not guilty." AP writers and editors didn't always follow the rule, and there was spirited debate in some newsrooms and at copy editors' meetings about the implications of one term or the other. The well-taken argument was that using "innocent" implied a defendant had to prove his or her innocence, which is not supposed to be the way it's done in our courts.

Citing the accuracy of modern editorial systems that makes it less likely the "not" would be dropped, the AP has swung to what had become common in many newsrooms. Just make sure your human editorial systems are as accurate as your mechanical ones.

Here are some other words and phrases to think about:

Handed up, handed down: Grand juries hand indictments up; judges hand rulings down. The judge sits higher than anyone else, so the jurors must hand their paperwork "up." Better yet, just use "issued."

The AP leaves "grand jury" lower case, reasoning that more than one grand jury might be meeting in some jurisdictions. But what about a statewide grand jury? In some states, there is only one, but for consistency, it's probably better left lower cased.

For. Write that someone "was arrested for the murder of" and you've effectively convicted the person. People are not arrested "for" a crime. They are "arrested on suspicion of" or, perhaps, "arrested and charged with" a crime.

Accused, alleged, suspected. These are useful verbs but dangerous adjectives. Police can "allege" that someone committed a crime, though why not just use the simple "say"? They can have "suspected" that someone did something. But an "accused killer" is a killer; the "accused" doesn't mean a fig. Same thing with "suspected robber" or "alleged embezzler" -- you've effectively convicted them, and we just shouldn't do that.

Admits: Use this word at your peril, especially when "says" is neutral.

Claims, maintains: Why use these words, even when referring to allegations in a lawsuit, when they carry connotations of skepticism? Again, that old standby, "says" is best.

Suspect: There might be a robber, a killer, a burglar -- but there is no suspect until police specifically name someone. Incorrect: "The suspect was 5-foot-6." Correct: "The robber was 5-foot-6." Once police name someone, then drop robber, killer, etc., and shift to suspect.

Strangled, electrocuted: Using "to death" is redundant. If the person did not die, he or she was "choked" or "shocked." Same thing for drowned and hanged (not hung).

Autopsy to determine the cause of death: Redundant. That's what autopsies do.

Murder. A murder is not a murder until someone is convicted of murder. It doesn't matter how gruesome or "tragic" (note to TV anchors, please excise that word from your vocabularies) a killing, charging someone with murder doesn't make it a murder. A person can be "charged with murder in connection with" and maybe "is charged with murdering." But the person was not arrested "in the murder of." Murder requires proving certain facts, and cases can and do get bargained to lesser charges. Sure, those folks eventually convicted of manslaughter aren't likely to sue us, but when our credibility is sinking past that of lawyers, we owe ourselves and our readers this care.

At one time, at least one major newspaper would not call someone a convicted murderer on the chance it might be overturned on appeal. That's probably a bit much. And if police call it a "murder-suicide," it's pointless to contort to avoid the term. But be judicious.

Robbery, burglary: A TV reporter recently called the disappearance of some football championship rings from a university's offices a "robbery." Nope. Illegally entering to steal something is burglary, and sometimes the entryway doesn't even have to be locked. Robbery usually requires force or threat -- putting your hand in your pocket and suggesting a gun might do. Don't confuse them.

Assault: The connotation in the minds of your readers can spell trouble. One Midwestern paper reported that a woman "assaulted" her husband. The police report used "assault" because she screamed at him. But she sued, and the judge ruled that the popular notion of assault is "hit." It cost the paper dearly.

Civil lawsuit: Redundant. Lawsuits are civil by definition.

Filed suit: "Sued" is more direct and active.

Think, believe: Police may truly "believe" someone did something, but I'd like to hope they allow for the possibility of innocence. Police "think" someone committed a crime. You believe with the heart, feel with the senses and think with the mind. As the late John Bremner wrote in "Words on Words,"  "The thinking wordsmith will not use these words interchangeably."

Journalism vs. stenography: Why do we say someone "fled at a high rate of speed" instead of "sped away"? Or "was driving at a high rate of speed" instead of "at high speed" or "fast"? (Speeding is not a substitute unless you know for sure it was over the speed limit.) Why unthinkingly use the sterile "male" and "female" when we would say "boy," girl," man" or woman" in telling the story to our friends? We write things such as "assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature" but should ask ourselves if that promotes understanding, or would "aggravated assault and battery" be clearer? And we write 15^th Circuit Court Judge Sam Smith, when for most people Circuit Judge Sam Smith would be just fine.

I have a standing $20 offer for the first person who can go to a mall and find five people out of 50 who know -- or care -- what judicial circuit they're in. I think that money is safe, even if we include the lawyers.

Doug Fisher, a former AP news editor, teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina and can be reached at fisherdj@mailbox.sc.edu or 803-777-3315.