Juveniles Report 00 by Administrator

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2000

October 2001  2001 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ Purpose of the Report ......................................................................................................... Processing of Juvenile Offenders ....................................................................................... Design of the Report........................................................................................................... Methodological Notes ........................................................................................................

1 1 2 3 4

OVERVIEW OF CASE VOLUME AT EACH DECISION POINT........................... 5 Exhibit A: Total Case Volume, System Retention, and Release Decisions ....................... 6 SECTION 1. ARREST ..................................................................................................... Exhibit 1A.1: Arrest Charge Citywide ............................................................................... Exhibit 1A.2: Arrest Charge by Borough........................................................................... Table 1a: Arrest Charge by Borough.................................................................................. Exhibit 1B: Age by Borough .............................................................................................. Table 1b: Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough ...................................................... Exhibit 1C: Gender by Borough......................................................................................... Table 1c: Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough ................................................. Exhibit 1D: Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough ................................................................ Table 1d: Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough.........................

7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT................................................ Exhibit 2A.1: Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide ..................................................... Exhibit 2A.2: Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough................................................. Table 2a: Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough........................................................ Exhibit 2B: Arraignment Release Status by Borough ........................................................ Table 2b: Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ........... Exhibit 2C: Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide .......................................... Table 2c: Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough.......................................... Exhibit 2D: Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough .......................................... Table 2d: Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough .......................................................................................................................

18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION................................................... Exhibit 3A: Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough ............................................ Table 3a: Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough ............................................... Exhibit 3B.1: Criminal Court Disposition by Borough...................................................... Exhibit 3B.2: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide....... Table 3b: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ........ Exhibit 3C: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................

30 32 33 34 35 36

Table 3c: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 38 Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ 39 Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 40 SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT ................................. Exhibit 4A.1: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide ................................ Exhibit 4A.2: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough ............................ Table 4a: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough ................................... Exhibit 4B: Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ........................ Table 4b: Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 4C: Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough.................... Table 4c: Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 4D: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide .............................................................................. Table 4d: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough..........................................................................

41 44 45 46 47

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION ...................................................... Exhibit 5A.1: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide ......................................... Exhibit 5A.2: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ..................................... Table 5a: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ............................................ Exhibit 5B: Supreme Court Disposition by Borough......................................................... Table 5b: Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough......... Exhibit 5C: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough .................. Table 5c: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough......................................................................................................... Exhibit 5D.1: Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ............................... Exhibit 5D.2: Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide ........................................................................................................ Table 5d: Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 5E: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide............................................................................................................................

53 57 58 59 60 61 62

48 49 50

63 64 65 66

Exhibit 5F: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide ....................................................................................................... Table 5f: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ......................................................................................... Exhibit 5G: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.............. Table 5g: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ......... Exhibit 5H: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.............. Table 5h: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ........................ SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE ......................................................... Exhibit 6A: Supreme Court Sentence by Borough............................................................. Table 6a: Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............. Exhibit 6B.1: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ Exhibit 6B.2: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough ................................... Table 6b: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough......................................................................................................... Exhibit 6C.1: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide................................................................................................. Exhibit 6C.2: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough ............ Table 6c: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............................................................................................ Exhibit 6D: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide ............................................................................................................. Table 6d: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity By Borough ........................................................................................................ Exhibit 6E: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide ...... Table 6e: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 6F: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.................. Table 6f: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough .............

70 71 72 73 74 75 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

89 90

91 92 93

Exhibit 6G: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.................. 94 Table 6g: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............................ 95 SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES ........................................................ Exhibit 7A: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court for Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide ......................................................... Table 7a: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court by Criminal Court Arraignment Release Status and Borough........................................................................ Exhibit 7B: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court for Defendants Released at the First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide ............................................ Table 7b: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court by Release Status at the First Supreme Court Appearance and Borough................................................................

96 97 98 99 100

APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES........................................................................ 101

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER, 2000 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report. Serious crime committed by young offenders has attracted considerable attention and has engendered public concern regarding the criminal justice system's response to these young offenders. Foreshadowing recent national concern, New York State passed the Juvenile Offender (JO) Law as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978. This legislation created, for New York, a "waiver-down" rather than a "waiver-up" system typical in most states. In New York, when a fourteenor fifteen-year-old juvenile is arrested for a serious offense, such as first degree assault or first degree robbery (or a thirteen-year-old is arrested for second degree murder), the case is filed directly in the adult court. By contrast, in the "waiver-up" system usually found, jurisdiction for juveniles arrested for serious offenses begins in the juvenile court, and the case may then be transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate. During recent years, the number of youths in detention, by the authority of the adult or juvenile courts, has been increasing. This strains the resources of both juvenile justice professionals responsible for handling these offenders in New York City and of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) which is in charge of juvenile pretrial detention. Concern regarding detention capacity heightened because of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to replace Spofford, a large but outmoded juvenile detention facility, with two new detention facilities with a combined capacity less than Spofford's. Overcrowding in the new facilities led to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to renovate and reopen Spofford. In order to provide information regarding arrest and court activity for juveniles arrested for serious offenses, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) has developed the Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City. The current report covers January through December 2000 (the second half of fiscal year 2000 and the first half of fiscal year 2001). The report describes selected characteristics of those arrested and also provides information on court activity on serious cases with juvenile defendants in the Criminal (lower) and Supreme (upper) Court during the reporting period. The report provides a picture of the numbers and types of arrests of juveniles for serious crimes which entered the adult criminal justice system, and describes disposition and release-status decisions in such cases. This information can provide policy-makers with an understanding of the types of offenses attributed to juveniles and of the routine system responses. This can aid in the development of potential intervention strategies, either for limiting pretrial detention or for alternative sanctioning. This report is prepared by CJA, a not-for-profit corporation, contracting with the City of New York for the following purposes: 1) To decrease the number of days spent in detention by defendants who could be safely released to the community;

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

2) To reduce the rate of non-appearance in court by defendants released from detention and awaiting trial; 3) To provide a variety of administrative, informational and research services to criminal justice agencies, defendants, and the public. In order to achieve these goals, CJA interviews and develops release recommendations for defendants who, after arrest, are held for arraignment in Criminal Court.1 This information is presented to judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel to aid in assessing the likelihood that individual defendants, if released, will return for subsequent court appearances. CJA also provides released defendants notification of future court-appearance obligations, and performs research and evaluation functions regarding the effective operation of criminal justice processes. In order to perform the notification and research functions, the Agency maintains its own database of all adult arrests for criminal matters. This database contains information about all arrests, both those for which defendants were held for arraignment (summary) and those for which a Desk Appearance Ticket was issued. Because juveniles arrested for JO offenses are within the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system, data regarding their arrests and court cases are contained in the CJA database; however, once their case is terminated in the adult system, information regarding subsequent actions in juvenile court (Family Court) is not available to CJA. The CJA database is the source for this Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City. Processing of Juvenile Offenders. In New York City, if a juvenile is arrested for any one of seventeen2 serious offenses (a complete list of JO charges is contained in Appendix A) and is thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of the offense (thirteen only if charged with homicide), the case is sent for review to the District Attorney's office in the borough in which the incident occurred. The prosecutor decides if there is sufficient evidence to support the filing of JO charges, and, if there is adequate evidence, the case is filed in the Criminal Court. If there is not sufficient evidence that a JO offense has been committed, the prosecutor will decline to prosecute and refer the matter to the agency responsible for prosecuting cases in the Family Court, the Corporation Counsel.3 1

CJA does not ordinarily interview defendants who are arrested solely on bench warrants, or charged with non-criminal offenses within the Administrative Code or the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendants arraigned in the hospital without going through a police central booking facility are not interviewed. In Manhattan, CJA does not interview defendants arrested solely on charges of prostitution except for those processed through the Midtown Community Court. 2 The seventeen serious offenses include two charges added to the list as of November 1, 1998: 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree and 265.03, possession of a weapon with second degree, where the weapon is possessed on school grounds. 3

The Corporation Counsel, representing the City of New York, or sometimes the county district attorney, is termed the "presentment agency." These agents present the petition regarding a particular respondent in Family Court.

-3Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

At any point during the adult criminal court process, a case may either be referred or removed to Family Court. A referral is an informal transfer after the adult court concludes its case in some manner, such as a dismissal, while a removal is a judicial transfer of a proceeding pending in Criminal or Supreme Court. At the pre-filing stage, only referrals can occur, while post-filing either referrals or removals may happen. A removal allows the case to be prosecuted as a designated felony in Family Court. The District Attorney has the option to retain jurisdiction and prosecute the case in Family Court; if this option is not exercised, Corporation Counsel will prosecute. Further, most referrals, even those concluded through a dismissal of the JO case in either Criminal or Supreme Court, are also reviewed by Corporation Counsel for possible filing of non-JO charges in the Family Court. If the case is not sent to Family Court prior to indictment, it will be given to the Grand Jury for review. If an indictment is handed down, the case is then transferred to Supreme Court, where it is filed in Supreme Court. For those B-, C- or D-felony JO charges where the prosecuting DA agrees, the defendant may consent to waive indictment and be prosecuted by a superior court information (SCI). The functional equivalent of an indictment, this instrument is usually used to expedite felony pleas. Unless the case is referred or removed in Supreme Court post-indictment, both disposition and sentencing usually occur there. An offender convicted of an eligible JO offense may be adjudicated as a Youthful Offender (YO), and receive a sentence authorized for an E-felony conviction. If not adjudicated a YO, an offender convicted of a JO offense must be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05, which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required. In response to concern regarding JOs, the city has developed specialized courtrooms in Supreme Court in each borough except Staten Island called Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts) for the handling and disposition of some JO cases. JO cases may be assigned to these parts after indictment, either for Supreme Court arraignment or subsequent to arraignment. Exceptions to the processing in JO parts may include high publicity cases or those with adult codefendants. The court specialization allows for those involved to develop an expertise in the processing of JO cases. Design of the Report. This report provides descriptive information, such as charge type, borough of arrest, or gender, for processing activity that occurred during the reporting period at different decision points in the adult court process. It begins with arrests, and then provides information about the initial and disposition hearing, for both courts; for Supreme Court, sentence information is also included. The report covers the 2000 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. It is divided into seven sections: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Arrest; Criminal Court (CC) arraignment; Criminal Court disposition; Supreme Court (SC) first appearance;

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

5) Supreme Court disposition; 6) Supreme Court sentence; 7) Failure-to-appear rates. Any case which had a specific action (arrest, arraignment, disposition, or sentence) during the reporting period is counted in the appropriate section. If a case had two or more actions, it is counted multiple times. For example, if a defendant was arrested and arraigned in Criminal Court during the reporting period, that case would be counted in both the arrest and Criminal Court arraignment sections. Thus, the report does not present a picture of only those defendants who entered the system during a reporting period, and instead reflects all cases on which any specific action, such as arraignment, or disposition, was taken. The information is presented first with graphic displays called "Exhibits," which use percentages, and then in tables which contain whatever detailed numbers and percentages relate to a specific exhibit. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, Exhibit 2B presents arraignment outcome by borough, while Table 2b provides arraignment outcome for various affidavit charges, by borough. Methodological Notes. As noted earlier, CJA's database is limited to the adult court. The subsequent outcome of any case referred or removed to Family Court from adult court is not known.4 Because of the extremely low number of juvenile offenders arrested and processed in Staten Island (there were 47 arrests during this reporting period), Staten Island information is not included in the information presented after the Arrest Section. Thus, â&#x20AC;&#x153;citywideâ&#x20AC;? totals exclude the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period. Numbers for the subsequent reporting periods will be reviewed, and the information may be included in later time periods. Staten Island information is available on request. Further, the number of cases with female defendants is also too low to be meaningful past the Criminal Court arraignment decision point. That is, although the number of cases for which females were arrested during the reporting period was 212, only 55 cases with female defendants were arraigned in Criminal Court. Past Criminal Court arraignment, then, full gender distributions are not displayed, nor are percentages calculated. These also are available on request. 4 Although the database does not record whether the case was sent to the Family Court through either a removal or a referral, disposition type may be used as a rough guide for tracking this distinction. Prearraignment, Decline Prosecutions (DPs) or referrals to Family Court are the mechanisms for sending arrests to the Family Court; those, which are referred, are automatically reviewed by the Corporation Counsel, while those, which are given DPs, may not be. For this report, both the pre-arraignment Family Court referrals and the Declined Prosecution arrest outcomes are combined. Post-arraignment, dismissals are the referral mechanism, while the CJA category 'Transfer to Family Court' (TR-FC) is used primarily for removals.

-5Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

Finally, release status of defendants is available only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, we present defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the arraignment hearing; the defendants whose cases were terminated at that point through a dismissal typically have no release status and are not included in the information.5 OVERVIEW OF CASE VOLUME AT EACH DECISION POINT Exhibit A shows the numbers of cases with activity at each decision point which resulted in cases either leaving or being retained in the system.6 For those cases which remain in the adult court system, the Exhibit shows whether the defendants were released (either on their own recognizance or through bail making) or detained on bail or remand. Please keep in mind that the numbers do not reflect a group of arrestees being tracked forward, but rather are those cases which had a specific action occurring during the reporting period. It is also important to note that the unit of analysis varies at different stages of processing. Although we refer to “cases” arraigned or disposed, the data are actually tallied by docket in Criminal Court and by indictment in Supreme Court. A single juvenile arrest may be associated with more than one docket and, if prosecuted in the Supreme Court, may be associated with more than one indictment. However, most arrests are represented by one docket and, if transferred to the upper court, most have only one indictment number. If an indictment charges more than one juvenile, the outcomes for each juvenile are tallied separately. As can be seen from Exhibit A, there were 1809 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. About a third of these arrests were filed in adult court —1240 cases (68%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, six of every ten were not transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (93%). Finally, the proportion of cases in which defendants were released was greater at all decision points after Criminal Court arraignment. For the subsequent case processing points, this appears to be a function not only of an increase in the number of defendants making bail, but a decrease in the overall numbers of cases processed at each point.

5 However, for those cases transferred either to Family Court or elsewhere, there will be a release status, because the case is still open. 6 In order to specify whether a case has left the system, the following categories were used. For the arrest decision point, a case has left the system if there was a declined prosecution or a referral to Family Court. For each of the court decision points, that is, arraignment or disposition in either Criminal Court or Supreme Court, the categories which are combined to reflect leaving the system are dismissals, and transfers either to Family Court or other courts. Thus, the ones which are counted as retained are those which either remained pending in either court, went to trial, or pled guilty in Supreme Court.

-6Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

Exhibit A Total Case Volume, System Retention, and Release Decisions Volume

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Arrests

1809

1240 (68%)

569 (32%)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

571

2 (0.4%)

569 (99%)

205 (36%)7

CC Dispositions

587

355 (60%)

232 (40%)

data not available

SC 1st Appearances

232

4 (2%)

228 (98%)

93 (41%)

SC Dispositions

258

18 (7%)

240 (93%)

114 (48%)

363 (64%) data not available

133 (59%) 124 (52%)

The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 568 cases, not 571, because release status is missing for the docket in one juvenile case, and was not relevant for the two dockets that were dismissed. 8

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 226 cases, not 232, because of missing release status data and three dismissals. 9

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 238, not 258, because release status is missing for some juvenile cases and the release decision is not relevant for the cases that were dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death. Release status data is not limited to defendants who are convicted and awaiting sentencing. It pertains also to defendants whose cases are transferred to Family Court.

-7Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1809 arrests for JO offenses in 2000. This is much lower than the roughly 2400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1, second degree robbery was the most serious charge for nearly half of the juvenile arrests. First and second degree robbery together account for seven of every ten juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2000, one percent (19) of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first degree kidnapping, or first degree arson). After first and second degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was burglary in the second degree. This charge accounted for eight percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. It is also important here to note that, as of November 1998, juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (265.03, subsection 4) or third degree (265.02), if it occurred on school grounds, and juveniles can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, all of the 49 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and all of the 91 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 have been included in this report as juvenile offender arrests. These two weapon offenses account for nearly eight percent of the juvenile arrests in 2000. As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, arrest offense type varies somewhat across the boroughs. While second degree robbery was the most frequent, the proportion this charge represented of all JO arrests was lowest in Staten Island (38%), followed by Brooklyn (44%), Manhattan and the Bronx (both 47%) and highest in Queens (53%). Arrests for second degree burglary account for nearly one of every five JO arrests in Staten Island, compared to eleven percent of those in Queens, nine percent in Manhattan, and only six percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx. The two weapon charges for which juveniles have now become eligible for prosecution in the adult court account for eleven percent of the Bronx JO arrests and nine percent of those in Brooklyn but only seven percent of those in Manhattan, six percent in Staten Island and only four percent in Queens. As in previous reports, the volume of murder cases remains extremely small in each borough, ranging from one juvenile in Staten Island and Manhattan, four in Queens, to five in both Brooklyn and the Bronx. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the borough differences are wider, but the volume remains small. The Bronx shows more juveniles charged with attempted murder (6) than the next closest boroughs, Brooklyn and Queens, with four arrests each, followed by Manhattan with two juveniles and Staten Island with no juvenile charged with attempted murder at arrest. Taken together, murder and attempted murder charges account for less than two percent of the juvenile offender arrests in 2000. Detailed distributions of all JO charges for each borough are presented in Table 1a. Exhibit 1B shows that six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varies little by borough, ranging between 59 and 63 percent in the four largest boroughs, but 69 percent in Staten Island. There was one JO arrest involving a thirteen-year-old in this reporting period.

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

Table 1b presents the distribution of age, by the severity of the JO arrest charge, for each borough. Citywide, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds account for more JO arrests than do younger arrestees. The fifteen-year-olds account for nearly three quarters of the A-felony arrests, and 61 percent of the B- and C-felony arrests. Not surprisingly, most arrestees for JO offenses were male (88%, comparable to the 85% to 88% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of arrestees who were male are very small, with only a five percentage-point spread across the boroughs. As shown in Table 1c, the female arrestees are underrepresented in the most severe felony-offense categories. Citywide, five percent of the juveniles with A-felony arrest charges were female, compared to eleven percent of those with B-felony arrest charges, and twelve percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, more than two thirds of the 2000 JO arrests were not docketed.10 The proportion prosecuted in 2000 (32%) is slightly lower than the proportions reported for 1999 and 1998 when prosecutors filed a case in adult court for 35 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of the JO arrests. 10

The arrests that are not docketed include those voided by the police or declined prosecution (DP) as well as prosecutorial transfers to Family Court.

-9-

Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 2000 JO Arrests

Murder 2 0.9% Other* 22.6%

Robbery 1 23.7%

Assault 1 4.5%

Att. Murder 2 0.9%

Robbery 2 47.5%

(N=1,809)

* Includes other A, B, C, and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=659)

Percentage

0.6 0.8

27.9

44.5

5.2

21.1

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=288)

0.7 0.3

27.8

46.9

3.1

21.2

0.9 0.9

20.9

53.2

4.1

20.0

Assault 1

Queens (N=459)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=356)

1.7 1.4

16.3

47.5

5.1

28.1

Att. Murder 2

2000 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Staten Is. (N=47)

Other*

2.1

21.3

38.3

2.1

36.2

-10-

659

100.0%

73.5% 9.6% 6.5% 10.4% 100.0% 100.0%

356

64.6%

5.0% 47.9% 14.9% 0.0% 9.1% 16.5% 0.0% 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0%

34.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.4%

169 22 15 24

230

6 58 18 0 11 20 0 4 4 0

121

5 0 0

Bronx N %

288

135 26 6 14

181

2 80 9 0 1 9 0 4 1 0

106

1 0 0

100.0%

74.6% 14.4% 3.3% 7.7% 100.0%

62.8%

1.9% 75.5% 8.5% 0.0% 0.9% 8.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%

36.8%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.3%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

459

244 53 4 13

314

4 96 19 0 4 7 0 6 3 0

139

4 0 2

100.0%

77.7% 16.9% 1.3% 4.1% 100.0%

68.4%

2.9% 69.1% 13.7% 0.0% 2.9% 5.0% 0.0% 4.3% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%

30.3%

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

1.3%

Queens N %

18 9 1 2

0 10 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0

1 0 0

16 428 81 0 34 53 1 18 13 0

644

16 0 3

859 147 49 91

100.0% 1809

60.0% 30.0% 3.3% 6.7% 100.0%

100.0%

75.0% 12.8% 4.3% 7.9% 100.0%

63.3%

2.5% 66.5% 12.6% 0.0% 5.3% 8.2% 0.2% 2.8% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0%

35.6%

84.2% 0.0% 15.8% 100.0%

1.1%

CITYWIDE N %

63.8% 1146

0.0% 62.5% 6.3% 0.0% 6.3% 12.5% 0.0% 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0%

34.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.1%

Staten Island N %

Note: The numbers in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony category. The percentages in shaded bold are the proportions each felony category represen of the total N for each borough and citywide.

TOTAL

293 37 23 38

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

74.9% 9.5% 5.9% 9.7% 100.0%

59.3%

391

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

39.8%

262 1.5% 70.2% 13.0% 0.0% 6.5% 5.7% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

0.9%

5 0 1

Brooklyn % N

4 184 34 0 17 15 1 3 4 0

Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Assault 1: (120.10) Manslaughter 1: (125.20) Rape 1: (130.35) Sodomy 1: (130.50) Agg. Sex Abuse: (130.70) Burglary 1: (140.30) Arson 2: (150.15) Att. Kidnapping 1: (110-135.25) Subtotal

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) Subtotal

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arrest Charge by Borough for 2000 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=659)

Percentage

39.6

60.4

Bronx (N=352)

38.9

61.1

Manhattan (N=284)

37.0

63.0

Queens (N=456)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2000 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

0.2

40.4

59.4

Staten Is. (N=45)

31.1

68.9

Citywide (N=1796)

0.1

39.0

60.9

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal B FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal ALL CHARGES* 13 14 15 TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

0.9%

1.4%

0.4%

1.3%

2.2%

1.1%

0 2 4

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 5

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 2 3

16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 4 14

5.3% 21.1% 73.7% 100.0%

262

39.8%

119

33.8%

103

36.3%

138

30.3%

31.1%

636

35.4%

0 97 165

0.0% 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

0 49 70

0.0% 41.2% 58.8% 100.0%

0 44 59

0.0% 42.7% 57.3% 100.0%

0 54 84

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0 4 10

0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

0 248 388

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

391

59.3%

228

64.8%

180

63.4%

312

68.4%

66.7%

1141

63.5%

0 162 229

0.0% 41.4% 58.6% 100.0%

0 88 140

0.0% 38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

0 61 119

0.0% 33.9% 66.1% 100.0%

0 128 184

0.0% 41.0% 59.0% 100.0%

0 10 20

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 449 692

0.0% 39.4% 60.6% 100.0%

659

100.0%

352

100.0%

284

100.0%

456

100.0%

1796

100.0%

0 261 398

0.0% 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%

0 137 215

0.0% 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

0 105 179

0.0% 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

1 184 271

0.2% 40.4% 59.4% 100.0%

0 14 31

0.0% 31.1% 68.9% 100.0%

1 701 1094

0.1% 39.0% 60.9% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=657)

Percentage

90.0

10.0

Bronx (N=356)

87.6

12.4

Manhattan (N=288)

85.8

14.2

Queens (N=459)

Gender Males Females

2000 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

88.2

11.8

Staten Is. (N=47)

85.1

14.9

Citywide (N=1807)

88.3

11.7

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal B FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal ALL CHARGES* Males Females TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE %

0.9%

1.4%

0.3%

1.3%

2.1%

1.1%

6 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 1

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

260

39.6%

121

34.0%

106

36.8%

139

30.3%

34.0%

642

35.5%

230 30

88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

107 14

88.4% 11.6% 100.0%

88 18

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

134 5

96.4% 3.6% 100.0%

14 2

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

573 69

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

391

59.5%

230

64.6%

181

62.8%

314

68.4%

63.8% 1146

63.4%

355 36

90.8% 9.2% 100.0%

201 29

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

158 23

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

265 49

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

25 5

83.3% 1004 16.7% 142 100.0%

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

657

100.0%

356

100.0%

288

100.0%

459

100.0%

100.0% 1807

100.0%

591 66

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

312 44

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

247 41

85.8% 14.2% 100.0%

405 54

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

40 7

85.1% 1595 14.9% 212 100.0%

88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=659)

Percentage

63.9

36.1

Bronx (N=356)

71.3

28.7

Manhattan (N=288)

61.8

38.2

Queens (N=459)

77.1

22.9

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2000 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=47)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

70.2

29.8

Citywide (N=1809)

68.5

31.5

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

0.9%

1.4%

0.3%

1.3%

2.1%

1.1%

2 4

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

2 3

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 5

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5 14

26.3% 73.7% 100.0%

262

39.8%

121

34.0%

106

36.8%

139

30.3%

34.0%

644

35.6%

80 182

30.5% 69.5% 100.0%

52 69

43.0% 57.0% 100.0%

31 75

29.2% 70.8% 100.0%

53 86

38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

9 7

56.3% 43.8% 100.0%

225 419

34.9% 65.1% 100.0%

391

59.3%

230

64.6%

181

62.8%

314

68.4%

63.8% 1146

63.3%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

339 52

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

200 30

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

147 34

81.2% 18.8% 100.0%

300 14

95.5% 4.5% 100.0%

24 6

80.0% 1010 20.0% 136 100.0%

88.1% 11.9% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

659

100.0%

356

100.0%

288

100.0%

459

100.0%

100.0% 1809

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

421 238

63.9% 36.1% 100.0%

254 102

71.3% 28.7% 100.0%

178 110

61.8% 38.2% 100.0%

354 105

77.1% 22.9% 100.0%

33 14

70.2% 1240 29.8% 569 100.0%

68.5% 31.5% 100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal B FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 57111 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, fewer than the 834 arraigned in 1999, and fewer than in any previous year in this report series. The decrease in arraignment volume is substantial in each borough. The decline was greatest in Manhattan (38%), followed by Queens (33%), Brooklyn (29%) and the Bronx (28%). The data for the previous reporting period showed a large decrease in arraignment volume in the Bronx (38%), a smaller decrease in Manhattan (11%), while the number of arraignments had decreased only slightly in Brooklyn and had increased by 26 percent in Queens. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that a majority of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (53%), and another quarter were for second degree robbery (24%). Thus, nearly eight of every ten JO dockets in adult court had robbery affidavit charges. These proportions are virtually the same as were reported for arraignments in 1996 to 1999. In addition, the combined proportion of robbery charges is roughly the same proportion of the JO arrest population that showed robbery arrest charges, but first degree robbery charges are more prevalent among the arraignment affidavit charges and second degree robbery charges are more common among the arrest charges. Murder and attempted murder charges account for a slightly larger portion of cases among arraignments of juveniles than among the full JO arrest population: six percent of all arraignments were for these most severe charges, compared to less than two percent of those arrested during the reporting period. The differences between the reported percentage distribution of charges at arrest and at arraignment primarily reflect the different rates of non-prosecution for juveniles with different arrest charges. As shown in the previous section in Table 1d, juvenile arrests with more severe arrest charges were more likely to be prosecuted in the adult court than were those with charges of lesser severity. For example, 26 percent of cases for juveniles charged with an A felony at arrest were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to 35 percent of the cases for juveniles with B felony arrest charges and 88 percent of those with C- or D-felony charges at arrest. Far fewer juveniles were arraigned in Criminal Court than were arrested, so those with more severe arraignment charges such as first degree robbery constitute a larger proportion of the arraignment population than of the arrest population. Charges at arraignment vary somewhat by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. Here, the proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery varied widely, from a high of 68 percent for Queens, to a low of 39 percent for the Bronx. When first and second degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences are far more narrow because the borough with the highest proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery showed the lowest proportion of juveniles charged with second degree robbery at 11

The volume of cases arraigned here varies slightly from the volume of docketed arrests reported in the previous section because arrests known to be docketed may not have been arraigned in the reporting period. In addition, this section reports on dockets that are arraigned, and an arrest may be associated with more than one docket.

-19Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

arraignment. Together, first and second degree robbery account for nearly eight of every ten JO arraignments in Brooklyn and Queens, and nearly nine of every ten in Manhattan, but still only 65 percent of the Bronx arraignments. The Bronx shows a particularly high proportion (13%) of arraigned dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges, compared to less than eight percent in Brooklyn and less than three and two percent, respectively, in Manhattan and Queens. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.12 There were very few dismissals (2) or transfers to Family Court (0) at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that nearly a third of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide. The rate of ROR is comparable to the rate in 1999, which was much lower than in 1998 (40%), but similar to the rates in 1997 (34%) and 1996 (35%). Borough differences are substantial with the highest ROR rate found in the Bronx (42%), followed by Brooklyn (33%), and Manhattan (30%), and the lowest ROR rate found in Queens (21%). The 2000 ROR rate in the Bronx is much higher than it was in 1999, but is closer to the rates shown in the Bronx in previous reporting periods. Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail was less than five percent citywide, ranging from less than three percent in Manhattan to less than five percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx, to seven percent in Queens. Even with the highest rate of release on bail, the juveniles arraigned in Queens showed higher rates of detention at arraignment (72%) than did those arraigned in other boroughs (68% in Manhattan, 63% in Brooklyn, and 54% in the Bronx). Release rates vary by the severity of the affidavit charge, as can be seen in Table 2b, and defendants arraigned in cases with more serious charges were more likely to be detained. Citywide, most of those arraigned on A-felony charges were remanded with no bail set (70%); this is in contrast to less than three percent of those arraigned on B felonies and none facing a C- or D-felony charge. Further, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies is 28 percent, as compared to 43 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies. Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment are large and are apparent even within charge-severity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2000, the largest group of cases, the proportion released on ROR was highest in Brooklyn and the Bronx (32%), and far lower in Queens (24%) and Manhattan (20%). The borough differences are even wider at the C- and D-felony level. The juveniles were released on ROR in more than two thirds of the cases filed with C- or D-felony charges in the Bronx, compared to 49 percent in Manhattan and 37 percent in Brooklyn, while none of the juveniles in the twelve cases filed in Queens at that felony charge level were released on recognizance. 12

As noted in the introduction, from arraignment forward, “all boroughs” and “citywide” reporting excludes the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period.

-20Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: four of every ten females were released on ROR (42%, down from 53% in 1999 and from 58% in 1998), as compared to three of every ten males (compared to 28% in 1999 and 36% in 1998). The gender difference may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there were too few female juveniles arraigned in adult court in 2000 to permit meaningful analysis of release rates by charge severity. Table 2D and Exhibit 2d display the release status set at arraignment by juvenile recommendation category, according to the new juvenile release recommendation system, first implemented for testing in April, 1996. Prior to that date, the interview data for juvenile defendants were provided without a release recommendation because the community-ties criteria for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. Like the adult release recommendation system, the new juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 2000, nearly eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated according to the protocol used for adults. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then nine of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the defendant from eligibility for either a positive or negative recommendation. These considerations include the “Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID,” “No NYSID Available,” “Murder Charge” (125.25 or 110-125.25) or “Interview Incomplete,” but only the murder charge and the bench warrant exclusions were exercised in any of the four largest boroughs in 2000. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then nearly 95 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2000 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR are far more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. A third of the juveniles in the positive recommendation category (34%), compared to barely one of every four (23%) who were not recommended, were ROR’d at arraignment. However, in 2000, only 26 juveniles were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment.

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2000 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 53.3%

Att. Murder 2 4.7%

Murder 2 1.4%

Other* 11.7% Robbery 2 24.3%

Assault 1 4.6%

(N=571)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=240)

Percentage

3.8 1.7

53.8

24.2

3.3

13.3

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=115) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

7.5 0.9

39.3

26.2

7.5

18.7

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=107)

Att. Murder 2

2000 JO Arraignments

0.9 1.7

51.3

35.7

4.3

6.1

Assault 1

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=109)

Other*

8.3 0.9

67.9

11.0

4.6

7.3

-22-

100.0%

240

28 1 1 3

8 42 8 0 5 9 0 0 1 0

1 0 0

107

100.0%

84.8% 3.0% 3.0% 9.1% 100.0%

30.8%

11.0% 57.5% 11.0% 0.0% 6.8% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

68.2%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

115

41 0 0 0

1 59 5 0 0 3 0 3 1 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

35.7%

1.4% 81.9% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

62.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.7%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N %

12 0 0 0

9 74 5 0 0 2 0 1 3 0

1 0 2

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11.0%

9.6% 78.7% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 1.1% 3.2% 0.0% 100.0%

86.2%

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

2.8%

Queens %

109

8 0 2

571

139 1 6 5

151

27 304 26 0 17 21 0 5 10 0

100.0%

92.1% 0.7% 4.0% 3.3% 100.0%

26.4%

6.6% 74.1% 6.3% 0.0% 4.1% 5.1% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

71.8%

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

1.8%

CITYWIDE %

410

Note: The numbers in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony category. The percentages in shaded bold are the proportions each felony category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

TOTAL

89.2% 0.0% 7.7% 3.1% 100.0%

58 0 5 2

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

27.1%

5.3% 75.4% 4.7% 0.0% 7.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.6% 2.9% 0.0% 100.0%

71.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.7%

9 129 8 0 12 7 0 1 5 0

171

4 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) Subtotal

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2000 JO Arraignment

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=239)

Percentage

32.6

4.2

61.5

1.7

ROR

Bronx (N=106)

41.5

4.7

47.2

6.6

Manhattan (N=114)

29.8

2.6

65.8

1.8

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=109)

21.1

7.3

67.9

3.7

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

Citywide (N=568)

31.5

4.6

60.9

3.0

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

1.7%

0.9%

1.8%

2.8%

1.8%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 2 0 1

0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

0 2 1 7

0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 70.0% 100.0%

170

71.1%

68.9%

62.3%

86.2%

408

71.8%

54 7 108 1

31.8% 4.1% 63.5% 0.6% 100.0%

23 3 41 6

31.5% 4.1% 56.2% 8.2% 100.0%

14 2 55 0

19.7% 2.8% 77.5% 0.0% 100.0%

23 5 63 3

24.5% 5.3% 67.0% 3.2% 100.0%

114 17 267 10

27.9% 4.2% 65.4% 2.5% 100.0%

27.2%

30.2%

36.0%

11.0%

150

26.4%

24 3 38 0

36.9% 4.6% 58.5% 0.0% 100.0%

21 2 9 0

65.6% 6.3% 28.1% 0.0% 100.0%

20 1 20 0

48.8% 2.4% 48.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 11 0

0.0% 8.3% 91.7% 0.0% 100.0%

65 7 78 0

43.3% 4.7% 52.0% 0.0% 100.0%

239

100.0%

106

100.0%

114

100.0%

109

100.0%

568

100.0%

78 10 147 4

32.6% 4.2% 61.5% 1.7% 100.0%

44 5 50 7

41.5% 4.7% 47.2% 6.6% 100.0%

34 3 75 2

29.8% 2.6% 65.8% 1.8% 100.0%

23 8 74 4

21.1% 7.3% 67.9% 3.7% 100.0%

179 26 346 17

31.5% 4.6% 60.9% 3.0% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 3 arraignments: 2 dismissals and 1 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Not Made 62.5%

Bail Set/Made 4.3%

Females (N=55)

Bail Set/Not Made 47.3%

Males

Remand 3.6%

ROR 41.8%

(N=512)

Remand 2.9%

ROR 30.3%

2000 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Made 7.3%

-26-

77 10 147 4

238

12 1 10 0

65 9 137 4

215

32.4% 4.2% 61.8% 1.7% 100.0%

100.0%

52.2% 4.3% 43.5% 0.0% 100.0%

9.7%

30.2% 4.2% 63.7% 1.9% 100.0%

90.3%

Brooklyn % N

44 5 50 7

106

4 1 5 1

40 4 45 6

41.5% 4.7% 47.2% 6.6% 100.0%

100.0%

36.4% 9.1% 45.5% 9.1% 100.0%

10.4%

42.1% 4.2% 47.4% 6.3% 100.0%

89.6%

34 3 75 2

114

6 1 8 0

28 2 67 2

29.8% 2.6% 65.8% 1.8% 100.0%

100.0%

40.0% 6.7% 53.3% 0.0% 100.0%

13.2%

28.3% 2.0% 67.7% 2.0% 100.0%

86.8%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

23 8 74 4

109

1 1 3 1

22 7 71 3

21.1% 7.3% 67.9% 3.7% 100.0%

100.0%

16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

5.5%

21.4% 6.8% 68.9% 2.9% 100.0%

94.5%

Queens %

103

178 26 346 17

567

23 4 26 2

155 22 320 15

512

* Excludes 4 arraignments: 2 dismissals, 1 for which arraignment release status was not available, and 1 for which gender was not available

31.4% 4.6% 61.0% 3.0% 100.0%

100.0%

41.8% 7.3% 47.3% 3.6% 100.0%

9.7%

30.3% 4.3% 62.5% 2.9% 100.0%

90.3%

CITYWIDE N %

Note: The numbers in bold are the gender subtotals for each borough and citywide. The percentages in bold are the proportions each gender represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

TOTAL*

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal

FEMALES:

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal

MALES:

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2000 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-27-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=239)

Percentage

84.1

9.6 2.5 1.3 2.5

Bronx (N=106)

73.6

4.7 1.9 5.7

14.2

Manhattan (N=114)

71.9

7.0

2.6

18.4

Queens (N=109)

80.7

3.7 5.5

10.1

Release Status J5--Recommended J6--Not Recommended J7A--Bench Warrant J7C--Murder Charge Recommendation Not Available

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2000 JO Arraignments

Citywide (N=568)

79.0

3.2 0.9 4.6

12.3

-28-

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2000 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

201

84.1%

73.6%

71.9%

80.7%

449

79.0%

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal

67 9 124 1

33.3% 4.5% 61.7% 0.5% 100.0%

36 4 34 4

46.2% 5.1% 43.6% 5.1% 100.0%

31 1 50 0

37.8% 1.2% 61.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 7 64 0

19.3% 8.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0%

151 21 272 5

33.6% 4.7% 60.6% 1.1% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

2.5%

5.7%

7.0%

5.5%

4.6%

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal

2 1 3 0

33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 2 0

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 8 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 5 0

16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

6 2 18 0

23.1% 7.7% 69.2% 0.0% 100.0%

1.3%

1.9%

0.0%

0.9%

0 0 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.5%

4.7%

2.6%

3.7%

3.2%

0 0 3 3

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 2

20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 8 9

5.6% 0.0% 44.4% 50.0% 100.0%

9.6%

14.2%

18.4%

10.1%

12.3%

9 0 14 0

39.1% 0.0% 60.9% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 10 1

26.7% 0.0% 66.7% 6.7% 100.0%

3 2 16 0

14.3% 9.5% 76.2% 0.0% 100.0%

5 1 3 2

45.5% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2% 100.0%

21 3 43 3

30.0% 4.3% 61.4% 4.3% 100.0%

239

100.0%

106

100.0%

114

100.0%

109

100.0%

568

100.0%

78 10 147 4

32.6% 4.2% 61.5% 1.7% 100.0%

44 5 50 7

41.5% 4.7% 47.2% 6.6% 100.0%

34 3 75 2

29.8% 2.6% 65.8% 1.8% 100.0%

23 8 74 4

21.1% 7.3% 67.9% 3.7% 100.0%

179 26 346 17

31.5% 4.6% 60.9% 3.0% 100.0%

J7A--Bench Warrant: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal J7C--Murder Charge: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal Recommendation Not Available: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 3 arraignments: 2 dismissals and 1 for which arraignment release status was not available

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 20010; January - December, 2000)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 587 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, a one-third decrease from the 871 dockets disposed in 1999. This follows a small increase from 1998 to 1999, but is the lowest annual volume of dispositions in this reporting series. The distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arrest and arraignment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more than three quarters are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, four of every ten of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, slightly lower than the rate for 1999 (46%) and lower than the rates in previous years. Again, there are borough differences, with Manhattan (48%) and Queens (42%) showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 37% in Brooklyn and 33% in the Bronx). Borough differences are also evident in the size of the decrease in the proportion of disposed dockets sent to the upper court. The decrease was largest in Queens (14 percentage points), followed by the Bronx (12 percentage points), and Manhattan (9 percentage points), while the rate of transfer to Supreme Court increased a few percentage points in Brooklyn. Further, three of every ten of the JO cases citywide that were disposed in Criminal Court were dismissed, although this did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. The Bronx (51%, up from 36%) and Manhattan (42%, also up from 36%), had the highest dismissal rates (36%), followed by Brooklyn (28%, up from 20%) and Queens (4%, down from 8%). The enormous range across the boroughs here may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.14 Manhattan and the Bronx also showed the lowest rates of transfer to Family Court (10% and 14%, respectively) while the transfer rates were higher in Brooklyn (36%) and Queens (54%). This is the first reporting period for which Brooklyn has not shown the highest proportion of disposed dockets transferred to Family Court. The Brooklyn transfer rate declined by nine percentage points from 1999 to 2000, but it is the Queens rate of transfer to Family Court that shows the largest increase, climbing 18 percentage points. Citywide, three of every ten juvenile offender cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the reporting period were transferred to Family Court, the same proportion as in 1999. Charge relates strongly to the likelihood the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. As presented in Exhibit 3B.2 (with the full display provided in Table 3b), the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than 13

Juvenile cases are limited in the options for final outcome in the lower court. If the JO charges are sustained and not dismissed, cases must be transferred from Criminal Court either to Family Court or Supreme Court for final adjudication. The cases cannot be disposed at the misdemeanor level in Criminal Court because juveniles in these cases would no longer be JOs and therefore not subject to adult prosecution. Their only dispositions in Criminal Court can be dismissal or transfer to Family Court.

Referrals can only occur after the adult court concludes its case with a dismissal. Removals represent the transferring of active cases.

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 20010; January - December, 2000)

disposition in Criminal Court, either through a dismissal or by transfer to Family Court, is higher when the charge is more severe. Most of the A-felony dockets (80% of 10 cases) were transferred to Supreme Court, as compared to four of every ten B-felony dockets and three of every ten C- or D-felony dockets. The strong relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is evident in each borough. Release status at the conclusion of lower court processing for cases transferred either to Family or Supreme Court is not presented in this report in light of considerations of data quality and availability. Available data sources do not consistently note the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s release status, perhaps in part because the defendant is not always present in court when the Grand Jury outcomes are recorded. Finally, Exhibits 3C and 3D present, respectively, the median number of appearances and days between Criminal Court arraignment and disposition separately for the three charge-severity categories, while Tables 3c and 3d present the same information by borough. The median is the midpoint of the distribution of the number of appearances or days elapsed. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court in 2000 was 3, as it was in the previous reporting period. The median remained at 3 in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, but decreased from 5 to 4 appearances in the Bronx and from 5 to 3 appearances in Queens. The median number of appearances was the same (3) for cases where the juvenile was held at arraignment as for cases where the juvenile was released on recognizance, but the small number of cases where the juvenile was released on bail or remanded with no bail set showed a higher median (5 appearances). There was little difference in the number of appearances by severity of affidavit charge. The median number of days in Criminal Court (16 days) was also the same citywide as during the previous period, but here there were wide borough differences (Table 3d). As in 1999, the median number of days was shortest in Manhattan (10), followed by Brooklyn (13) and the Bronx (17), and longest in Queens (22). Compared to the previous reporting period, the median increased by three or four days in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, and decreased sharply in Queens (from over five weeks). Some of the differences probably reflect changes within each borough in the release conditions set for the juveniles, since the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court was generally higher for those released, regardless of charge class. This is in accordance with speedy trial regulations, which set more stringent time limitations for processing cases for defendants in detention. However, other factors also contribute to differences in length of case by borough. In Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan, for example, the median number of days in lower court for juveniles who are detained on bail is about 5 days, compared to about three weeks in Queens. Borough differences are so strong that comparisons of median number of days in Criminal Court by charge severity primarily reflect the borough composition at each charge level.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=235)

Percentage

3.8 1.7

52.3

26.4

2.6

13.2

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=124)

0.8 1.6

50.0

37.9

4.0

5.6

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=105)

1.0

10.5

32.4

25.7

7.6

22.9

Att. Murder 2

5.7 0.8

67.5

12.2

6.5

7.3

Assault 1

Queens (N=123)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=587)

Other*

4.8 1.4

51.4

25.7

4.6

12.1

-32-

100.0%

235

27 1 1 4

11 34 8 0 7 10 0 0 1 0

1 0 0

105

100.0%

81.8% 3.0% 3.0% 12.1% 100.0%

31.4%

15.5% 47.9% 11.3% 0.0% 9.9% 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

67.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.0%

124

47 0 0 0

1 62 5 0 0 4 0 2 1 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37.9%

1.3% 82.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 2.7% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

60.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.6%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N %

1 0 2

123

15 0 0 1

7 83 8 0 0 2 0 1 3 0

100.0%

93.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%

13.0%

6.7% 79.8% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.0% 2.9% 0.0% 100.0%

84.6%

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

2.4%

Queens %

104

8 0 2

587

151 1 6 7

165

28 302 27 0 19 23 0 4 9 0

100.0%

91.5% 0.6% 3.6% 4.2% 100.0%

28.1%

6.8% 73.3% 6.6% 0.0% 4.6% 5.6% 0.0% 1.0% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%

70.2%

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

1.7%

CITYWIDE %

412

TOTAL

89.9% 0.0% 7.2% 2.9% 100.0%

62 0 5 2

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

29.4%

5.6% 75.9% 3.7% 0.0% 7.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0.6% 2.5% 0.0% 100.0%

68.9%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.7%

9 123 6 0 12 7 0 1 4 0

162

4 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) Subtotal

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2000 JO Criminal Court Disposition

Table 3a

-33-

100%

[586]

Citywide

[123]

Queens

[124]

Manhattan

[104]

Bronx

[235]

Brooklyn

(30.3)

50%

25%

(30.0)

(41.9)

(51.4)

(27.7)

50%

75% Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(42.3)

(47.6)

(39.5)

(33.3)

(36.6)

Transfers To FC

* These totals exclude 1 "other" disposition in the Bronx.

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are the percentages of total outcomes.

(4.1)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(10.5)

(53.7)

(14.3)

(35.7)

Dismissals

2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

-34-

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

(N=412)

30.8%

B Felonies

26.7%

(N=10)

20.0%

42.5%

Dismissals

A Felonies

80.0%

Percent

Transfers to SC

29.7%

(N=165)

30.0% 30.3%

0.2%

(N=587)

All Charges

39.5%

Other

0.6%

C or D Felonies

29.7%

40.0%

Transfers to FC

2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-35-

-36-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

1.7%

1.0%

1.6%

2.4%

1.7%

0 4 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 2 0

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 8 2 0

0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

162

68.9%

67.6%

60.5%

104

84.6%

412

70.2%

43 65 54 0

26.5% 40.1% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

34 25 12 0

47.9% 35.2% 16.9% 0.0% 100.0%

29 41 5 0

38.7% 54.7% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 44 56 0

3.8% 42.3% 53.8% 0.0% 100.0%

110 175 127 0

26.7% 42.5% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

29.4%

31.4%

37.9%

13.0%

165

28.1%

22 17 30 0

31.9% 24.6% 43.5% 0.0% 100.0%

20 9 3 1

60.6% 27.3% 9.1% 3.0% 100.0%

23 16 8 0

48.9% 34.0% 17.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 7 8 0

6.3% 43.8% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

66 49 49 1

40.0% 29.7% 29.7% 0.6% 100.0%

235

100.0%

105

100.0%

124

100.0%

123

100.0%

587

100.0%

65 86 84 0

27.7% 36.6% 35.7% 0.0% 100.0%

54 35 15 1

51.4% 33.3% 14.3% 1.0% 100.0%

52 59 13 0

41.9% 47.6% 10.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 52 66 0

4.1% 42.3% 53.7% 0.0% 100.0%

176 232 178 1

30.0% 39.5% 30.3% 0.2% 100.0%

(N=411)

B Felonies

(N=10)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

Remand

(N=163)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

(N=584)

All Charges

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

-37-

-38-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

3.5

3.0

0 0 1 3

3.0 3.0

0 0 0 1

3.0

0 0 0 2

3.5

0 2 0 1

3.0 9.0

0 2 1 7

3.0 3.0 3.0

161

3.0

5.0

3.0

105

3.0

411

3.0

50 7 103 1

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

20 4 40 7

5.0 5.5 3.5 5.0

11 4 59 0

4.0 5.0 3.0 -

28 4 72 1

3.0 3.0 3.5 15.0

109 19 274 9

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

3.0

3.5

3.0

163

3.0

27 3 39 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

19 3 10 0

3.0 5.0 3.5 -

25 1 21 0

3.0 7.0 5.0 -

1 1 13 0

7.0 5.0 3.0 -

72 8 83 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

234

3.0

104

4.0

123

3.0

123

3.0

584

3.0

77 10 143 4

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

39 7 50 8

4.0 5.0 3.5 5.0

36 5 80 2

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.5

29 7 85 2

3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0

181 29 358 16

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 3 juveniles for whom release status at arraignment was not applicable or not available.

B Felonies (N=411)

12.5

(N=10)

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

11 7.5

Remand

(N=163)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=584)

All Charges

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide:

-39-

-40-

Table 3d Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

5.0

5.5

18.0

5.0

0 0 1 3

4.0 5.0

0 0 0 1

5.0

0 0 0 2

5.5

0 2 0 1

18.0 112.0

0 2 1 7

18.0 4.0 5.0

161

14.0

12.0

5.0

105

24.0

411

15.0

50 7 103 1

19.0 34.0 5.0 4.0

20 4 40 7

47.5 114.0 5.5 11.0

11 4 59 0

157.0 139.0 5.0 -

28 4 72 1

22.0 14.0 27.0 250.0

109 19 274 9

23.0 34.0 12.5 11.0

12.0

28.5

21.0

17.0

163

18.0

27 3 39 0

26.0 20.0 5.0 -

19 3 10 0

33.0 97.0 6.5 -

25 1 21 0

64.0 192.0 7.0 -

1 1 13 0

620.0 39.0 15.5 -

72 8 83 0

31.0 40.0 7.5 -

234

13.0

104

17.0

123

10.0

123

22.0

584

16.0

77 10 143 4

22.0 29.0 5.0 5.0

39 7 50 8

38.0 97.0 5.5 10.0

36 5 80 2

78.5 182.0 5.0 5.5

29 7 85 2

22.0 18.0 21.5 181.0

181 29 358 16

27.0 34.0 9.0 7.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 3 juveniles for whom release status at arraignment was not applicable or not available.

-41Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of juvenile cases that reached Supreme Court in 2000 (232) is 38 percent lower than in 1998 (372), which had been slightly higher than in 1998 (336). The decrease was greatest in Queens (49%), which had shown the largest increase in 1999, followed by Manhattan (43%) and the Bronx (42%), and was lowest in Brooklyn (23%). Brooklyn cases account for four of every ten of cases at the first appearance in the upper court in 2000, compared to only 33 percent in 1999. Manhattan cases account for a quarter of juvenile cases that arrived in Supreme Court in 2000, while Queens cases account for a fifth, and Bronx cases account for 15 percent. The charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,15 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), shows that first and second degree robbery are still the most common charges. These charges together account for seven of every ten JO cases entering the upper court in 2000, as they did in the previous reporting period. Although second degree murder and attempted second degree murder charges account for less than two percent of all arrests during this reporting period, these charges account for nearly nine percent of cases in the upper court in the period. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for barely a quarter of all juvenile arrests during 2000, but more than half of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court in 2000. Bfelony charges together account for 36 percent of arrest charges in the year but 72 percent of charges associated with cases that reached first appearance in Supreme Court. When looking at the cases of juveniles at the first appearance in Supreme Court, more serious JO charges are more likely to be represented than are the less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, 18 percent of the defendants in cases that reached Supreme Court in 2000 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, that same rate as in 1999, but much lower than the 26 and 28 percent in 1998 and 1997, respectively. Fifty-eight percent of the defendants pled not guilty at their first appearance, much more than the 48 percent who pled not guilty during the previous year. Nearly a quarter of the cases were continued without a plea because the initial hearing in Supreme Court was probably not the actual Supreme Court arraignment, but was instead a pre-arraignment conference. This is a decrease from the one third of cases in 1999. The high proportion of defendants who pled guilty in cases in Queens (72%) is notable, up from 55 percent in 1999 and 45 percent in 1998. The proportion of guilty pleas in cases in the Bronx (15%) is far lower than in 1999 (26%), which was half the rate shown in 1998 (55%) and 1997 (57%). The Bronx rate is still far higher than the rate in Brooklyn (3%) or Manhattan where only one defendant pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. The large proportion of guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance in Queens and the decline in the plea rate in the Bronx reflect differences in plea policies 15

Pre-arraignment hearings are held in Supreme Court. The first appearance may or may not be that at which the defendant is arraigned, but it does reflect the initial decision-making opportunity in Supreme Court.

-42Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

and changes in the use of a Superior Court Information (SCI).16 The borough differences are visible even within charge severity categories. In Queens, 68 percent of defendants with B-felony charges pled guilty at the first appearance in Supreme Court and these pleas account for three quarters of juveniles who pled this early citywide. Among those who faced C- or D-felony charges, all of the six Queens juveniles but none of the 51 juveniles in the other boroughs pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance. Exhibit 4C presents the percentage of cases in which defendants were released at the first appearance in Supreme Court, regardless of the case disposition status leaving that appearance. This includes cases continued for disposition and cases continued for sentence. Juveniles were released on ROR or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in 41 percent of cases, matching the rate in 1999. Citywide, juveniles prosecuted in the Supreme Court were released on ROR at the first appearance in more than a quarter of all cases. Juveniles posted bail to secure release as of the date of the first appearance in 15 percent of cases, were held on bail in a third of the cases and were remanded with no bail set at that early stage of Supreme Court prosecution in nearly a quarter of the cases. Compared to 1999 data, the distribution of release status changed very little. The ROR rate increased slightly, while the proportion released on bail decreased by about the same amount. The proportion held on bail increased a bit and the proportion remanded without bail decreased slightly. As shown in Table 4c, the release rate varied substantially by charge; only one defendant charged with an A felony was released as of the first appearance in the upper court, compared to 37 percent of those charged with B felonies, and 56 percent of those charged with C or D felonies. The release rates in the boroughs were not as stable as the citywide rates. Queens shows the highest ROR rate among the boroughs during the reporting period (46%, up from 40% in 1999), but the proportion of juveniles who secured release on bail declined (9%, down from 20%), so the combined release rate shows a decline. Manhattan ranks second in the rate of ROR (26%, down from 30% in 1999) while the proportion released on bail in Manhattan shows an increase of about the same magnitude (14%, up from 9%). The ROR rate in Brooklyn during this reporting period was much higher than in 1999 (23%, up from only 9%), while the bail-making rate declined (17%, down from 25%). Taken together, four of every ten juveniles were released as of the first Supreme Court appearance in Brooklyn in 2000, compared to about a third in 1999. The changes in the Bronx have been most dramatic. The ROR rate in 2000 (12%) was lower than in 1999 (19%), which was less than half the rate in 1998 (50%). The proportion of juveniles released on bail in the Bronx as of the first appearance in the upper court increased (18% in 2000, up from 9% in 1999) but the combined rate of release on bail or on recognizance was lower in the Bronx in 2000 (29%), than in any previous reporting period in that 16

An SCI is prepared by the prosecutorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office and is used as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. The distinction regarding type of accusatory instrument to which a plea is taken is not available for this report.

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

borough, or any other borough in 2000. However, the volume of cases that reached Supreme Court in the Bronx in 2000 (34) was also lower than previously recorded. Exhibit 4D presents the median number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court, for each charge class, separately for each release status. Citywide, it took a median of roughly two weeks (16 days), to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), one day longer than in 1998. Cases with less severe charges tended to move more quickly to the upper court. A-felony cases showed a median of 29 days, B-felony cases took a median of 18 days, and C- or D-felony cases took 14 days. Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. The median ranged from zero days in Queens (down from 6 days in 1999) to 27 days in Brooklyn (down from 29). A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the juvenile cases that came to Supreme Court in Queens in 2000 had arrived by SCI, rather than by indictment. In SCI cases, defendants waive indictment at the last Criminal Court appearance and, typically, plead guilty in the upper court on the same day. The median number of days in Manhattan increased to 11 days, from 7 days in 1999, but was 14 days in 1998. The median number of days to the first appearance in Supreme Court also increased in the Bronx, to nearly 16 days, up from 13 days, which was a nearly two-week increase over the median shown in 1998. The increase in the median number of days to reach the upper court in the Bronx reflects a decrease in the use of SCIs in that borough, a decrease that was very pronounced in 1999. Borough differences in the median number of days within charge class and release status are often substantial and should be viewed with caution because of the small numbers of cases in some of the borough-charge-release-status categories. In 2000, in the two boroughs with the largest numbers of cases (Brooklyn and Manhattan), juvenile cases with C- or D-felony charges reached Supreme Court from Criminal Court more quickly than did juveniles cases with B-felony charges. In 2000, cases for juveniles who were released tended to move more quickly to Supreme Court than did the cases of other juveniles in Brooklyn and Queens, but not in the Bronx or Manhattan. In Brooklyn, the Bronx and especially Queens, the median number of days was highest for juveniles who were detained on bail, but in Manhattan the median was shortest for the cases where the juvenile was detained on bail. It is beyond the scope of this report to do more than speculate about the reasons for these observed differences. The explanation may involve the types of cases released or detained in the boroughs, or it may reflect other prosecutorial practices specific to particular boroughs.

-44-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 51.3%

Att. Murder 2 5.2%

Murder 2 3.4%

Other* 13.8% Assault 1 6.5%

Robbery 2 19.8%

(N=232)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=93)

Percentage

4.3 4.3

55.9

11.8

7.5

16.1

Murder 2

5.7

11.4

31.4

17.1

5.7

28.6

Manhattan (N=58)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=35)

Att. Murder 2

1.7 3.4

41.4

39.7

5.2

8.6

Assault 1

2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance By Borough:

Queens (N=46)

Other*

6.5

69.6

13.0

6.5

4.3

-45-

100.0%

6 0 1 3

4 11 2 0 3 1 0 0 2 0

2 0 0

100.0%

60.0% 0.0% 10.0% 30.0% 100.0%

28.6%

17.4% 47.8% 8.7% 0.0% 13.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 100.0%

65.7%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5.7%

23 0 1 0

1 24 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 100.0%

41.4%

3.1% 75.0% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

55.2%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.4%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

6 0 0 0

3 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13.0%

7.5% 80.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

87.0%

0.0%

Queens %

8 0 0

232

46 1 4 6

12 119 15 0 8 5 0 2 6 0

100.0%

80.7% 1.8% 7.0% 10.5% 100.0%

24.6%

7.2% 71.3% 9.0% 0.0% 4.8% 3.0% 0.0% 1.2% 3.6% 0.0% 100.0%

72.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.4%

CITYWIDE %

167

TOTAL

64.7% 5.9% 11.8% 17.6% 100.0%

11 1 2 3

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

18.3%

5.6% 72.2% 9.7% 0.0% 6.9% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%

77.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4.3%

4 52 7 0 5 2 0 0 2 0

4 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) Subtotal

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearance

Table 4a

-46-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=90)

Percentage

3.3

83.3

13.3

Bronx (N=34)

14.7

52.9

32.4

Pled Guilty

Manhattan (N=58)

1.7

55.2

43.1

Disposition Pled Not Guilty

Queens (N=46)

Continued

2000 JO Supreme Court Appearances

71.7

13.0

15.2

Citywide (N=228)

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough:

18.4

57.5

24.1

-47-

-48-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

4.4%

5.9%

3.4%

0 3 1 0

0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

76.7%

64.7%

55.2%

Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal

3 56 10 0

4.3% 81.2% 14.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 12 5 0

22.7% 54.5% 22.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 19 12 0

3.1% 59.4% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

18.9%

29.4%

Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal

0 16 1 0

0.0% 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 5 5 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

3 75 12 0

3.3% 83.3% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 18 11 0

Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal B FELONIES:

ALL CHARGES* Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant TOTAL

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

3.5%

0 5 3 0

0.0% 62.5% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

87.0%

163

71.5%

27 6 7 0

67.5% 15.0% 17.5% 0.0% 100.0%

36 93 34 0

22.1% 57.1% 20.9% 0.0% 100.0%

41.4%

13.0%

25.0%

0 12 12 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 33 18 0

10.5% 57.9% 31.6% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

228

100.0%

14.7% 52.9% 32.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 32 25 0

1.7% 55.2% 43.1% 0.0% 100.0%

33 6 7 0

71.7% 13.0% 15.2% 0.0% 100.0%

42 131 55 0

18.4% 57.5% 24.1% 0.0% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=90)

Percentage

23.3

16.7

52.2

7.8

11.8

17.6

26.5

44.1

Manhattan (N=58)

25.9

13.8

22.4

37.9

45.5

9.1

22.7

Remand

Queens (N=44)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=34)

ROR

2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=226)

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough:

26.5

14.6

35.0

23.9

-49-

-50-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

4.4%

5.9%

3.4%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

76.7%

64.7%

55.2%

20 8 37 4

29.0% 11.6% 53.6% 5.8% 100.0%

1 4 5 12

4.5% 18.2% 22.7% 54.5% 100.0%

5 3 9 15

15.6% 9.4% 28.1% 46.9% 100.0%

18.9%

29.4%

1 7 9 0

5.9% 41.2% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

3 2 3 2

30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% 100.0%

100.0%

21 15 47 7

23.3% 16.7% 52.2% 7.8% 100.0%

4 6 9 15

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

3.5%

1 0 2 5

12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 62.5% 100.0%

86.4%

161

71.2%

15 4 10 9

39.5% 10.5% 26.3% 23.7% 100.0%

41 19 61 40

25.5% 11.8% 37.9% 24.8% 100.0%

41.4%

13.6%

25.2%

9 5 4 6

37.5% 20.8% 16.7% 25.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 1

83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

18 14 16 9

31.6% 24.6% 28.1% 15.8% 100.0%

100.0%

226

100.0%

11.8% 17.6% 26.5% 44.1% 100.0%

15 8 13 22

25.9% 13.8% 22.4% 37.9% 100.0%

20 4 10 10

45.5% 9.1% 22.7% 22.7% 100.0%

60 33 79 54

26.5% 14.6% 35.0% 23.9% 100.0%

100

150

200

(N=158)

(N=8)

20.5

B Felonies

A Felonies

175

Median Number of Days

ROR

21 11

Remand

(N=56)

C or D Felonies

16.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

10.5

25.5

(N=222)

All Charges

18.5

Exhibit 4D Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide:

-51-

-52-

Table 4d Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

29.0

172.5

27.0

29.0

0 0 1 3

21.0 29.0

0 0 1 1

329.0 16.0

1 0 0 1

40.0 14.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 2 5

40.0 175.0 29.0

28.0

13.5

14.0

0.0

158

17.5

20 7 35 4

25.5 25.0 36.0 71.0

1 4 5 12

0.0 18.5 17.0 9.5

5 3 9 15

14.0 13.0 8.0 14.0

15 4 10 9

0.0 7.5 24.5 3.0

41 18 59 40

14.0 20.5 27.0 9.0

22.5

16.5

8.0

0.0

14.0

1 7 8 0

37.0 23.0 22.0 -

3 2 3 2

20.0 16.5 35.0 10.5

9 5 4 6

6.0 15.0 4.5 9.5

5 0 0 1

0.0 212.0

18 14 15 9

5.0 16.5 21.0 11.0

27.5

15.5

11.0

0.0

222

16.0

21 14 44 7

26.0 25.0 32.0 29.0

4 6 9 15

15.0 16.5 17.0 10.0

15 8 13 22

8.0 15.0 7.0 12.5

20 4 10 10

0.0 7.5 24.5 3.0

60 32 76 54

10.5 18.5 25.5 11.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 10 cases: 3 dismissals, 1 transfer to Family Court, 2 cases missing release status, and 4 missing number of days

-53Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 258 cases of juvenile offenders reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2000, less than the 338 disposed in the upper court in 1999, but more than the 247 disposed in 1998. Borough comparisons in the volume of cases disposed in 2000 and 1999 in the upper courts show that fewer cases reached disposition in each borough, but the decrease was very small in Manhattan (78, down from 81). The Brooklyn decrease (23%) was close to the citywide decline (24%), while the decrease was sharper in the Bronx (30%) and most severe in Queens (38%). The result is that Brooklyn and Bronx cases account for about the same proportion of dispositions in this reporting period (34% and 14%, respectively) as they did in the previous reporting period (34% and 16%, respectively). However, Manhattan cases account for three of every ten of the citywide total disposed in Supreme Court in 2000 (up from 24% in 1999) and Queens cases account for only one in five (down from 26%). The charge composition of cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions examined at other milestones in this report. As in the previous reporting period, more than half of the cases involve a charge of first degree robbery and first and second degree robbery together account for nearly three quarters of the dispositions. Cases disposed in the Supreme Court were more likely to involve a murder or attempted murder charge (8%, compared to 4% in 1999 and 1998, and 7% in 1997, but 9% in 1996). After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault which accounts for six percent of Supreme Court dispositions. As in 1999, Afelony charges account for three percent of disposed cases, B-felony charges account for about three quarters of disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges account for the remaining cases. Borough differences in the distribution of disposition charges are large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a), as they have been in previous reporting periods. The proportion of cases with first or second degree robbery charges ranges from 65 percent in Brooklyn and 68 percent in the Bronx to 78, and 83 percent in Queens and Manhattan, respectively. These figures are within three percentage points of the proportions observed in the previous reporting period in each borough except the Bronx where the robbery proportion declined six percentage points. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high: Overall, 93 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, up from 83 percent in 1999 and from 87 percent in 1998. The conviction rates in Manhattan (96%), the Bronx (95%) and Queens (94%) were particularly high compared to Brooklyn (89%), but the citywide increase in conviction rates was reflected in each borough. Juvenile cases disposed at the B-felony level were only slightly more likely to show convictions (94%) than were the cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (92%). The difference was very wide in Queens where 98 percent of juveniles disposed at the Bfelony level were convicted, but the volume in the lower charge severity category was too low for meaningful comparisons.

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, less than half (48%) of the cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period had defendants who were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance. This is lower than the 56 percent who secured release as of dispositions in 1999 and much lower than the two thirds of juveniles released at disposition in 1998. However, release rates in 1995, 1996 and 1997 ranged between 47 and 55 percent. The juveniles secured release on bail (13%, down from 15%) or on recognizance (35%, down from 41%) pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing. Juveniles were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d at disposition in 51 percent of the cases that reached disposition in the 1998. Juveniles in the cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were less likely to secure release in the Bronx (29%, down from 50% in 1999 and from 64% in 1998) than in any other borough. The rate of release in Manhattan showed a decline (49%, down from 67% in 1999 and 70% in 1998), but it is close to the release rate in Brooklyn (52%, compared to 54% in 1999 and 55% in 1998) and Queens (54%, compared to 53% in 1999 and 70% in 1998). Release on recognizance considered alone was about half as frequent in the Bronx (17%) as in the other boroughs (35%, 36% and 44% in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, respectively). Borough differences in rates of release on bail were not substantial during this reporting period, ranging from ten percent in Queens to 16 percent in Brooklyn. Exhibit 5D.1 and 5D.2 present information regarding the Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts). Exhibit 5D.1 presents the proportion disposed in those parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information about any differences in type of disposition, separately for each felony severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, the proportion is nearly eight of every ten (79%), up from 72 percent in 1999, 59 percent in 1998 and 63 percent in 1997. This varied substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (100%), followed by Brooklyn (90%), and the Bronx (81%) compared only 29 percent in Queens. The lower proportion in Queens seems to reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in non-JO Parts. As noted earlier, Queens makes greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. The overall increase in the use of the JO Parts reflects the increase that occurred in the Bronx, from only 31 percent of dispositions for juvenile cases in 1998 to 66 percent in 1999 and 81 percent in this reporting period. This increase in juveniles cases disposed in JO Parts in the Bronx seems to reflect a decline in the use of SCIs in that borough. The borough differences in the proportions of juvenile cases disposed in JO Parts may also reflect court and district attorney policies regarding particular types of cases, and perhaps the presence of adult codefendants, information that is not available in the CJA data. Previous reporting periods showed some differences in the types of dispositions handed down in JO Parts as compared to non-JO Parts. Specifically, the non-JO Parts showed a higher conviction rate than the JO Parts. It seems that the conviction rate in non-JO Parts was particularly high due to the inclusion of so many SCI cases, which imply that the plea is already entered, in the non-JO Parts. In contrast, the 1998

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

conviction rates for the non-JO and JO Parts were almost identical (88%, versus 87% in the JO Parts) and the 1999 and 2000 conviction rates were higher in the JO Parts than in the non-JO Parts (86% versus 79% for 1999 and 95% versus 87% for 2000). The volume of dispositions separated by JO versus non-JO Part and by borough is too low to permit conclusions as to whether the observed citywide difference in conviction rates might be attributable to the type of court part, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. The median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition are presented in Exhibits 5E and 5F. In general, the median number of appearances (12) and days (177) was very high for the small number of cases (9) disposed at the A-felony level. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were lower for cases with B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 105 days), and for cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 97 days). The median number of appearances was the same and the median number of days was twelve days longer in 2000 than in 1999, which, in turn had shown higher median figures than shown in 1998. The citywide data on the median number of appearances and the median number of days to disposition in Supreme Court again mask borough differences. It took an average of only one appearance to reach disposition in Queens (where more than half of the cases were disposed at the first appearance in Supreme Court, Exhibit 4B), compared to between eight and nine appearances in the other boroughs. Cases that require only one appearance from the first appearance in Supreme Court to disposition are, of course, the SCI cases in which, by definition, the plea is entered at the first appearance. Only in the Bronx, where the use of SCIs has declined, did the median number of appearances change since the last reporting period, increasing by three appearances. Similarly, the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from zero days (reflecting defendants who plead guilty at the first appearance) in Queens, to 104 days in Brooklyn, 138 days in Manhattan, and 152 days in the Bronx. The average number of days was the same in 2000 as in 1999 in Queens, increased by a week in Brooklyn and by eleven days in Manhattan, and by a month and a half in the Bronx. The sharp increase in the Bronx in 2000 followed an increase of three-months in 1999 compared to 1998. Citywide, juvenile cases took an average of three and a half months to be disposed in upper court in 2000, compared to three months in 1999 and only a month and a half during 1998. Length of case, in terms of both appearances and days, was also examined by the type of release status set for the juvenile at the first appearance in Supreme Court. Cases with juveniles who were released on recognizance reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were held on bail, but those who were released on bail and those who were remanded with no bail set showed the longest length of case in the upper court. Tables 5g, 5h and Exhibits 5G and 5H present similar information, comparing cases disposed in the JO Parts to those disposed elsewhere, for different levels of charge

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

at disposition, citywide. The median number of appearances and days to disposition was higher in the JO Parts, as compared to the non-JO Parts, for almost every dispositioncharge-severity category examined. Again, this finding probably reflects the use of SCIs, which generally reach disposition faster than other cases, and the greater likelihood of these cases to be completed in non-JO Parts. The cases in the JO Parts reached the upper court primarily through indictment, while the cases in the non-JO Parts include all of the SCI cases. Defendants in SCI cases usually plead guilty to felony charges at their last appearance in the lower court, which also serves as the first appearance in the upper court. The average number of Supreme Court appearances for juvenile offender cases disposed in a JO Part was nine, compared to a median of only one appearance for similar cases disposed elsewhere; the average number of days from the first Supreme Court appearance through disposition was 125 compared to a median of zero days for similarlycharged cases, including SCI cases, in non-JO Parts. The type of prosecutorial instrument (SCI versus indictment) seems to account for more variation in length of case than does the severity of the charge. However, borough differences persist even within the cases prosecuted in the JO Parts. Juvenile cases in JO Parts in Brooklyn (8 appearances, 104 days) and Queens (7 appearances, 115 days) reached disposition more quickly than did their counterparts in Manhattan (9 appearances, 141 days) or the Bronx (10 appearances, 190 days).

-57-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 56.3%

Murder 2 2.7% Assault 1 6.2% Att. Murder 2 5.8% Robbery 2 17.4%

Other* 11.6%

(N=258)

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=88)

Percentage

5.7

8.0

52.3

12.5

6.8

14.8

Murder 2

2.7 2.7

48.6

18.9

5.4

21.6

Manhattan (N=78)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=37)

Att. Murder 2

1.3 1.3

59.0

24.4

3.8

10.3

Assault 1

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge At Supreme Court Disposition By Borough:

Queens (N=55)

Other

10.9

63.6

14.5

1.8 9.1

-58-

100.0%

7 0 0 1

1 18 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0

1 0 0

100.0%

87.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

21.6%

3.6% 64.3% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 3.6% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0%

75.7%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.7%

19 0 1 0

1 46 3 0 1 2 0 3 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

95.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25.6%

1.8% 80.7% 5.3% 0.0% 1.8% 3.5% 0.0% 5.3% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

73.1%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.3%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

8 0 0 0

6 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14.5%

12.8% 74.5% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 100.0%

85.5%

0.0%

Queens %

7 0 0

258

45 1 4 4

15 145 16 0 4 7 0 4 6 0

100.0%

83.3% 1.9% 7.4% 7.4% 100.0%

20.9%

7.6% 73.6% 8.1% 0.0% 2.0% 3.6% 0.0% 2.0% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%

76.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.7%

CITYWIDE %

197

TOTAL

61.1% 5.6% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

11 1 3 3

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

20.5%

10.8% 70.8% 9.2% 0.0% 1.5% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

73.9%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5.7%

7 46 6 0 1 3 0 0 2 0

5 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) Subtotal

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Disposition

Table 5a

-59-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=88)

Percentage

88.6

11.4

Manhattan (N=78)

96.2

3.8

Queens (N=55)

94.5

5.5

* Other includes Transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=37)

94.6

5.4

Disposition Conviction Other*

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=258)

93.0

7.0

-60-

-61-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

Queens %

A FELONIES:

5.7%

2.7%

1.3%

Conviction Other Subtotal

3 2

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

73.9%

75.7%

74.4%

Conviction Other Subtotal

57 8

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

27 1

96.4% 3.6% 100.0%

57 1

98.3% 1.7% 100.0%

20.5%

21.6%

18 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

100.0%

78 10

88.6% 11.4% 100.0%

35 2

C OR D FELONIES: Conviction Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Conviction Other TOTAL

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 7

2.7%

4 3

57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

85.5%

198

76.7%

46 1

97.9% 2.1% 100.0%

187 11

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

24.4%

14.5%

20.5%

18 1

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

6 2

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

49 4

92.5% 7.5% 100.0%

100.0%

258

100.0%

94.6% 5.4% 100.0%

75 3

96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

52 3

94.5% 5.5% 100.0%

240 18

93.0% 7.0% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * "Other" includes cases transferred to Family Court, dismissed, acquitted or abated by death.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=79)

Percentage

35.4

16.5

8.9

39.2

17.1

11.4

5.7

65.7

Manhattan (N=74)

36.5

12.2

4.1

47.3

44.0

10.0

2.0

44.0

Remand

Queens (N=50)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=35)

ROR

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=238)

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

34.9

13.0

5.5

46.6

-62-

-63-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

Queens %

3.8%

2.9%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

73.4%

77.1%

75.7%

25 8 5 20

43.1% 13.8% 8.6% 34.5% 100.0%

5 4 1 17

18.5% 14.8% 3.7% 63.0% 100.0%

17 7 3 29

30.4% 12.5% 5.4% 51.8% 100.0%

22.8%

20.0%

3 5 1 9

16.7% 27.8% 5.6% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 5

14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 71.4% 100.0%

100.0%

28 13 7 31

35.4% 16.5% 8.9% 39.2% 100.0%

6 4 2 23

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

1.7%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

88.0%

185

77.7%

17 5 1 21

38.6% 11.4% 2.3% 47.7% 100.0%

64 24 10 87

34.6% 13.0% 5.4% 47.0% 100.0%

24.3%

12.0%

20.6%

10 2 0 6

55.6% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

5 0 0 1

83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

19 7 2 21

38.8% 14.3% 4.1% 42.9% 100.0%

100.0%

238

100.0%

17.1% 11.4% 5.7% 65.7% 100.0%

27 9 3 35

36.5% 12.2% 4.1% 47.3% 100.0%

22 5 1 22

44.0% 10.0% 2.0% 44.0% 100.0%

83 31 13 111

34.9% 13.0% 5.5% 46.6% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Includes juveniles who are convicted and awaiting sentencing as well as those whose cases are transferred to Family Court. Excludes 8 dismissals as well as 12 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=88)

Percentage

89.8

10.2

Bronx (N=37)

81.1

18.9

Manhattan (N=78)

100.0

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=55)

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

29.1

70.9

Exhibit 5D.1 Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=258)

78.7

21.3

-64-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(N=198)

2.3

(N=7)

6.8

B Felonies

2.6 1.9

90.9

JO Part Non-JO Part

95.5

A Felonies

33.3

100.0

2.3 2.3

80.0

20.0

(N=53)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

95.3

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

JO Part Non-JO Part

66.7

Percent

Convicted

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

3.4 2.0

87.3

10.9 1.8

(N=258)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

94.6

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide:

-65-

-66Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

5.7%

2.7%

1.3%

3 0 1 4

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

73.9%

75.7%

74.4%

53 2 3 58

91.4% 3.4% 5.2% 100.0%

22 0 0 22

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

57 0 1 58

98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 100.0%

4 1 2 7

57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 100.0%

5 0 1 6

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

0 0 0

20.5%

21.6%

17 0 0 17

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 0 7

85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 1 19

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

100.0%

73 2 4 79

92.4% 2.5% 5.1% 100.0%

29 1 0 30

96.7% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0%

75 0 3 78

5 1 3 9

55.6% 11.1% 33.3% 100.0%

6 0 1 7

85.7% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 7

2.7%

0 0 0

4 0 2 6

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

85.5%

198

76.7%

15 1 0 16

93.8% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0%

147 3 4 154

95.5% 1.9% 2.6% 100.0%

31 0 0 31

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

40 1 3 44

90.9% 2.3% 6.8% 100.0%

24.4%

14.5%

20.5%

94.7% 0.0% 5.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

41 1 1 43

95.3% 2.3% 2.3% 100.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal B FELONIES:

0 0 0

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal ALL CHARGES:

6 0 2 8

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

8 0 2 10

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

100.0%

258

100.0%

96.2% 0.0% 3.8% 100.0%

15 1 0 16

93.8% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0%

192 4 7 203

94.6% 2.0% 3.4% 100.0%

37 0 2 39

94.9% 0.0% 5.1% 100.0%

48 1 6 55

87.3% 1.8% 10.9% 100.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * "Dismissed" includes cases dismissed, acquitted or abated by death.

(N=189)

B Felonies

(N=9)

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

6.5

Remand

(N=50)

C or D Felonies

8.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=248)

All Charges

Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide:

-67-

-68-

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

13.0

12.0

9.0

11.0

12.0

0 1 0 4

13.0 14.0

0 0 0 1

12.0

1 0 0 1

7.0 11.0

0 0 0 1

11.0

1 1 0 7

7.0 13.0 12.0

7.0

9.0

1.0

189

7.0

16 10 31 6

8.0 8.5 7.0 6.5

1 5 10 11

1.0 15.0 9.5 7.0

13 7 13 20

9.0 11.0 7.0 11.0

17 4 16 9

1.0 2.5 7.0 1.0

47 26 70 46

7.0 9.0 7.0 7.0

7.0

9.0

7.0

1.0

7.0

1 8 7 1

11.0 8.5 7.0 7.0

2 0 2 2

7.0 7.5 10.0

10 4 3 4

5.5 8.5 6.0 8.5

5 0 0 1

1.0 1.0

18 12 12 8

5.0 8.5 6.5 8.0

8.0

9.0

8.5

1.0

248

7.0

17 19 38 11

9.0 9.0 7.0 9.0

3 5 12 14

5.0 15.0 9.0 8.0

24 11 16 25

7.0 10.0 6.5 10.0

22 4 16 11

1.0 2.5 7.0 1.0

66 39 82 61

6.0 9.0 7.0 8.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 10 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

150

200

250

300

122 89.5

(N=189)

104.5

B Felonies

119.5

(N=9)

177

A Felonies

246

Median Number of Days

ROR

185

Remand

(N=50)

C or D Felonies

131

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

102

(N=248)

All Charges

121

140

Exhibit 5F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide:

-69-

-70-

Table 5f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

169.0

413.0

157.5

224.0

177.0

0 1 0 4

246.0 168.0

0 0 0 1

413.0

1 0 0 1

122.0 193.0

0 0 0 1

224.0

1 1 0 7

122.0 246.0 177.0

101.0

137.0

161.0

0.0

189

105.0

16 10 31 6

122.0 111.5 101.0 74.5

1 5 10 11

0.0 196.0 176.0 77.0

13 7 13 20

146.0 147.0 120.0 196.0

17 4 16 9

0.0 55.0 92.5 0.0

47 26 70 46

98.0 119.5 104.5 89.5

99.0

153.0

98.0

0.0

97.0

1 8 7 1

155.0 118.0 72.0 106.0

2 0 2 2

61.0 153.0 241.5

10 4 3 4

94.5 152.5 90.0 185.0

5 0 0 1

0.0 0.0

18 12 12 8

55.0 131.0 93.0 185.0

104.0

152.5

138.0

0.0

248

105.0

17 19 38 11

125.0 118.0 94.0 140.0

3 5 12 14

45.0 196.0 168.5 129.5

24 11 16 25

123.5 147.0 112.5 193.0

22 4 16 11

0.0 55.0 92.5 0.0

66 39 82 61

81.0 121.0 102.0 140.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 10 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=198)

(N=7)

A Felonies

12.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=53)

C or D Felonies

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=258)

All Charges

Exhibit 5G Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-71-

-72-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

13.0

12.0

7.0

13.0

4 1

13.0 15.0

1 0

12.0 -

1 0

7.0 -

0 0

6 1

12.5 15.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

198

7.0

58 7

7.5 1.0

22 6

9.5 1.0

58 0

10.0 -

16 31

7.0 1.0

154 44

9.0 1.0

7.0

9.5

7.0

1.0

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

17 1

7.0 7.0

7 1

10.0 9.0

19 0

7.0 -

0 8

1.0

43 10

8.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

8.0

9.0

1.0

258

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

79 9

8.0 7.0

30 7

10.0 1.0

78 0

9.0 -

16 39

7.0 1.0

203 55

9.0 1.0

JO Part Non-JO Part B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part C OR D FELONIES:

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category.

100

150

200

250

300

B Felonies (N=198)

120.5

(N=7)

177

A Felonies

168

Median Number of Days

(N=53)

C or D Felonies

118

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=258)

All Charges

125

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appeaerance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-73-

-74-

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

169.0

413.0

122.0

169.0

4 1

168.0 177.0

1 0

413.0 -

1 0

122.0 -

0 0

6 1

168.0 177.0

101.0

134.5

154.0

0.0

198

104.5

58 7

101.0 0.0

22 6

171.5 0.0

58 0

154.0 -

16 31

115.0 0.0

154 44

120.5 0.0

102.5

226.5

131.0

0.0

99.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

17 1

106.0 72.0

7 1

238.0 169.0

19 0

131.0 -

0 8

0.0

43 10

118.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

102.5

168.0

141.0

0.0

258

105.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

79 9

104.0 72.0

30 7

190.0 0.0

78 0

141.0 0.0

16 39

115.0 0.0

203 55

125.0 0.0

JO Part Non-JO Part B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part C OR D FELONIES:

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category.

-75Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Exhibit 6A presents the sentences given in Supreme Court, by borough, with Table 6a providing the detailed distribution for each conviction-charge severity category. A total of 216 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2000 were for juvenile offenders, fewer than the 254 sentences in 1999 but more than the 158 sentences in 1998. Most of the decrease in the volume of sentences is attributable to the decrease in Queens, where 48 cases with juvenile defendants reached sentencing in 2000, compared to 78 in 1999. The number of sentences for juveniles in Supreme Court also declined in the Bronx (37, down from 48), changed little in Brooklyn (77, down from 79) and increased slightly in Manhattan (54, up from 49). Overall, more than six of every ten (62%) sentences for juvenile offenders in 2000 were custodial, much higher than the proportion in 1999 (48%). This includes either imprisonment only (53%, up from 39% in 1999) or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;splitâ&#x20AC;? sentence including both imprisonment and probation (9%, as in 1999). The proportion of sentences to imprisonment only increased sharply, from 38 percent in 1999. The proportion of split sentences was about the same as in the previous reporting period. Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles receive were large. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn and the Bronx were more likely to be incarcerative (70%) than were sentences in other boroughs. Incarcerative sentences account for 56 percent of sentences in Queens and half of sentences in Manhattan. The citywide increase in the proportion of incarcerative sentences is reflected in each borough except Brooklyn, where the rate was about as high in 2000 as it was in the previous reporting period. Probation with no incarceration was most common in Manhattan (50%, down from 80% in 1999), followed by Queens (48%, down from 59%) and the Bronx (48%), compared to less than one in every three sentences in Brooklyn or the Bronx. As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of a custodial sanction was higher for the juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (62%) than for those convicted at lesser severity levels (57%). The increase in custodial sentences in 2000 occurred in both charge severity categories, but the increase was much larger (23 percentage points) for sentences at the C- or D- felony level than for sentences at the B-felony level (12 percentage points). Only a third of sentences for juveniles convicted at the C- or D- felony level in 1999 were custodial, compared to half of those for juveniles convicted of B felonies. Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given to juvenile offenders in 2000 in the JO Parts to those given to juvenile offenders in non-JO Parts, citywide, for different conviction-charge severities. Differences in sentence outcomes are apparent. Sentences for juveniles convicted in JO Parts were nearly twice as likely to involve straight imprisonment than were sentences for juveniles convicted in non-JO Parts (57%, compared to 36%). Split sentences were infrequent regardless of court part: ten percent in the JO Parts and eight percent in non-JO Parts. Taken together, two thirds of the sentences for juveniles convicted in a JO Part, compared to 45 percent of the sentences for their counterparts convicted in a non-JO Part, received an incarcerative sentence in 2000. Conversely, sentences in non-JO Parts (53%) were more likely to require probation

-76Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

only than were sentences in the JO Parts (33%). These differences primarily reflect differences at the B-felony level, since so few cases (6) with juveniles convicted at the Cor D-felony level in non-JO Parts reached sentencing during the reporting period. Exhibit 6B.2 presents similar information without regard to charge for each borough and citywide. Citywide, the types of sentences given in 2000 in JO Parts and non-JO Parts showed the differences discussed above. Specifically, imprisonment without probation was far more common among the juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts (57%) than among those sentenced in the non-JO Parts (36%), as in previous reports, although the difference is wider than in 1999 (42%, versus 31%). However, the difference seems to be attributable at least in part to differences in the use of JO Parts in the boroughs, rather than simply to the sentencing tendencies of specialized court parts for juveniles. Juveniles in Brooklyn and Manhattan are far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to a JO Part than are juveniles in Queens, so the sentencing patterns in JO Parts are more likely to reflect the patterns characteristic of Brooklyn and Manhattan than those of the other boroughs. In 2000, Brooklyn alone accounts for 43 percent of the sentences in JO Parts. Brooklyn and Manhattan account together for nearly three quarters of the sentences in JO Parts. In Queens, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences account for the vast majority (70%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2000. The use of SCIs seems to have declined in the Bronx from 1998 to 1999, and again to 2000. While Bronx sentences were more likely to take place in JO Parts (78%) than in non-JO Parts (22%) in 2000, they account for fewer than one in every five sentences during the reporting period. The previous report presented some comparisons of the types of sentences juveniles receive in JO- versus non-JO Parts within the borough of arrest. Analysis was limited, as in the preceding years, because the boroughs do not often show substantial numbers of sentences for juveniles in both types of court parts. The citywide volume of sentenced juveniles is lower in 2000 than in 1999 and the distribution of cases across court part within borough has not improved. Queens is the only borough that shows more than ten cases in both JO and non-JO Parts, but the volume is small. The data show custodial sentences for almost all of those convicted in the JO Part (13 of 15 sentences), compared to less than half of the 33 sentences given in other court parts. Details regarding sentences given for specific conviction-charge severity levels, by borough and court part is presented in Table 6b. Similarly, Exhibit 6C.1 displays the conditions of sentence granted in the JO Parts as compared to the non-JO Parts citywide, for different conviction-charge classes. Citywide, juveniles were granted YO status in 72 percent of sentences during the reporting period, down from 84 percent in 1999. There was little difference by type of court part in the likelihood of receiving YO status: 72 percent of juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts and 70 percent of their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts were granted YO status. In the previous reporting period, the YO rate was 84 percent in the JO Parts and 83 percent in the non-JO Parts. Again, the citywide figures mask borough differences and type of court part is strongly related to the use of SCIs, which, as discussed earlier, varies by borough. YO status was granted in more than two thirds of

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

the sentences in the Bronx and Manhattan, seven of every ten sentences in Brooklyn, and nearly eight of every ten sentences in Queens. Again, the JO Part totals overwhelmingly reflect the conditions of sentence granted in Brooklyn and Manhattan, while the non-JO Part totals overwhelmingly reflect those granted in Queens. Again, borough comparisons by type of court part are limited because only Queens shows cases in both the JO- and non-JO Parts. In Queens, thirteen (87%) of the fifteen juveniles sentenced in the JO Part were granted YO status, compared to only three quarters of the 33 juveniles sentenced in other parts. Exhibits 6D and 6E give the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 2000 for each of the convictioncharge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2000 appeared a median of 11 times in Supreme Court, and a median of 245 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was one appearance longer but about three weeks shorter. The citywide data show little difference in the time from disposition to sentence in terms of the average number of appearances by the severity of the conviction charge or by the release status set for the juvenile at the first appearance in the Supreme Court. This may reflect the basic similarity of these cases that reach sentencing in the upper court in that they all involve juveniles convicted of serious violent felonies. Beyond that, it is difficult to summarize patterns in length of case (either by median number of appearances or median number of days) by release status at conviction and convictioncharge severity for several reasons. As we have already discussed, the small numbers of cases in many categories limit analysis. However, here we also find that the number of appearances and the number of days sometimes move in opposite directions. That is, for example, the median number of appearances for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level was lower than for those convicted at a lesser severity in both the Bronx and Manhattan (but not in Brooklyn or Queens), but in the Bronx the median number of days was also much lower while in Manhattan the number of days was much longer. Finally, the patterns of length of case processing by charge and release status across the boroughs are often divergent. For example, while the cases of juveniles who were remanded with no bail set took as long or longer than other cases in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens, in Brooklyn these cases show the lowest median length of case in terms of both appearances and days. It many be of interest to note that nearly half (46%) of the cases that reached sentencing in Supreme Court in 2000 involved juveniles who were remanded as of the disposition appearance, compared to little more than a third (35%) of those sentenced in the previous reporting period. The borough differences in length of case, even within charge and release status, are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (6 appearances, 64 days) than did the defendants in other boroughs. It took a median of 11 appearances in Brooklyn (224 days) and the Bronx (248 days) and 16 appearances (357 days) in Manhattan. The sequence of the boroughs in speed of case processing is similar

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

to the pattern shown in previous reporting periods. However, the changes in length of case were not distributed equally across the boroughs. Cases in Brooklyn took four fewer appearances and 25 fewer days to reach sentencing in 2000 than in 1999. Cases in Queens required one additional appearance and one week longer in 2000 than in 1999. In the Bronx, cases took and average of about half an appearance but 40 days longer to reach sentencing. In Manhattan, cases also took an average of about half an appearance more to reach sentencing in 2000 than in 1999, but the median number of days to sentencing decreased by five weeks. Exhibits 6F and 6G, and the associated Tables 6f and 6g, present similar information, comparing cases sentenced in the JO Parts to those sentenced elsewhere. The median number of appearances and median number of days is much higher for those sentenced in the JO Parts than for those sentenced in other parts. This is consistent with the findings reported for previous periods. For those sentenced for B felonies, it took 12 appearances and 264 days in the JO Parts and three appearances and 57 days in the nonJO Parts. The median number of appearances in JO Parts was almost the same for juveniles cases convicted at the B-felony level as for those convicted at the C- or Dfelony level, and there were too few cases sentenced in non-JO Parts in the lower conviction charge category to permit charge-based comparisons for the non-JO Parts. Longer elapsed time between conviction and sentence for juveniles in the JO Parts may reflect greater participation of juveniles in those parts in alternatives-to-incarceration (ATI) programs. Sentences are deferred while the court monitors the juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the program to assess the likelihood of success if sentenced to probation. Compared to the previous reporting period, the median number of appearances decreased for cases sentenced at the B-felony level in JO Parts (from 14 down to 12 days). In contrast, the median number of days increased for these cases by about a week. Closer examination of the data by borough, however, shows that the number of days actually decreased in each borough, so the apparent citywide increase reflects a shift in the relative contribution of each borough towards the citywide numbers. It is tempting to attribute borough differences in elapsed time to the differential use of SCIs in the boroughs. It is possible that the negotiations that precede the decision to bring a case to the upper court by SCI rather than by indictment include discussions of likely sentencing options and may lengthen Criminal Court processing. However, data presented earlier on the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court do not show substantially higher medians in Queens, the borough that makes the most frequent use of SCIs for juvenile cases, than in the other boroughs. The median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court in Queens is less than a week longer than the citywide average. The median is more than two weeks longer than in other boroughs for the juveniles who were held on bail, but is far below the citywide average for cases where the juvenile secured release (either on recognizance or on bail). Unfortunately, the data on length of case in Criminal Court combine all JO cases, regardless of the disposition, and are not restricted to cases that reach the upper court. The speed of case processing in Supreme Court in Queens, especially in the nonJO Parts where the SCI cases appear, may reflect the use of SCIs. However, even in the

-79Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

JO Part, Queens cases reach sentencing much faster than do the cases in other boroughs. It is beyond the scope of this report to do more than speculate about the reasons for these observed differences. It may involve the types of cases prosecuted in the JO- versus the non-JO Parts, or the way that some specialized court parts process some kinds of special cases, or the explanation may be borough- or court-specific.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=77)

Percentage

57.1

13.0

28.6

1.3

Bronx (N=37)

Imprisonment

54.1

16.2

29.7

Manhattan (N=54)

50.0

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=48)

Probation

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

47.9

8.3

41.7

2.1

Other

Citywide (N=216)

52.8

9.3

37.0

0.9

-80-

-81-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal B FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

5.2%

2.7%

1.9%

2.1%

3.2%

4 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 1

85.7% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

74.0%

75.7%

72.2%

89.6%

167

77.3%

32 6 18 1

56.1% 10.5% 31.6% 1.8% 100.0%

13 5 10 0

46.4% 17.9% 35.7% 0.0% 100.0%

23 0 16 0

59.0% 0.0% 41.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 4 17 1

48.8% 9.3% 39.5% 2.3% 100.0%

89 15 61 2

53.3% 9.0% 36.5% 1.2% 100.0%

20.8%

21.6%

25.9%

8.3%

19.4%

8 4 4 0

50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 1 0

75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 10 0

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 0

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 5 18 0

45.2% 11.9% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

216

100.0%

44 10 22 1

57.1% 13.0% 28.6% 1.3% 100.0%

20 6 11 0

54.1% 16.2% 29.7% 0.0% 100.0%

27 0 27 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 4 20 1

47.9% 8.3% 41.7% 2.1% 100.0%

114 20 80 2

52.8% 9.3% 37.0% 0.9% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(N=167)

2.6

(N=7)

10.3

30.8

B Felonies

8.6

31.3

56.4

A Felonies

60.2

JO Part Non-JO Part

20.0

100.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

80.0

Percent

Imprisonment

50.0

(N=42)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

50.0

Probation

41.7

13.9

44.4

Sentence Imp. and Probation

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Other

9.5

33.1

36.2

8.5

53.2

2.1

(N=216)

All Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

57.4

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-82-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=5)

(N=72)

60.0

20.0

JO Part

Brooklyn

56.9

12.5

30.6

Percentage

(N=29)

JO Part

25.0

75.0

(N=8)

Non JO Part

Bronx

62.1

20.7

17.2

Imprisonment

100.0

(N=53)

JO Part

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

49.1

50.9

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=15)

JO Part

(N=33)

Non JO Part

33.3

9.1

54.5

3.0

Other

Queens

80.0

6.7

13.3

Probation

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough:

Non JO Part

36.2

8.5

53.2

(N=169) (N=47)

JO Part

Citywide

57.4

9.5

33.1

2.1

-83-

-84Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

5.2%

2.7%

1.9%

3 0 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

74.0%

75.7%

31 5 18 0 54

57.4% 9.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

12 5 4 0 21

57.1% 23.8% 19.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 1 0 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 6 0 7

20.8%

7 4 4 0 15

2.1%

CITYWIDE N % 7

3.2%

4 0 1 0 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal B FELONIES:

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

72.2%

89.6%

167

77.3%

22 0 16 0 38

57.9% 0.0% 42.1% 0.0% 100.0%

12 1 2 0 15

80.0% 6.7% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

77 11 40 0 128

60.2% 8.6% 31.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14.3% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 3 15 1 28

32.1% 10.7% 53.6% 3.6% 100.0%

12 4 22 1 39

30.8% 10.3% 56.4% 2.6% 100.0%

21.6%

25.9%

8.3%

19.4%

46.7% 26.7% 26.7% 0.0% 100.0%

5 1 1 0 7

71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 10 0 14

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

16 5 15 0 36

44.4% 13.9% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

100.0%

41 9 22 0 72

56.9% 12.5% 30.6% 0.0% 100.0%

18 6 5 0 29

62.1% 20.7% 17.2% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 1 0 5

60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 6 0 8

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES:

1 0 3 0 4

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3 0 6

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

216

100.0%

26 0 27 0 53

49.1% 0.0% 50.9% 0.0% 100.0%

12 1 2 0 15

80.0% 6.7% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

97 16 56 0 169

57.4% 9.5% 33.1% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11 3 18 1 33

33.3% 9.1% 54.5% 3.0% 100.0%

17 4 25 1 47

36.2% 8.5% 53.2% 2.1% 100.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=167)

15.4

(N=7)

28.9

A Felonies

71.1

84.6

JO Part Non-JO Part

100.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

20.0

80.0

Percent

Youthful Offender

16.7

100.0

(N=42)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

83.3

Not Youthful Offender

2000 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

27.8

70.2

29.8

(N=216)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

5.1

72.2

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-85-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=5)

(N=72)

40.0

60.0

JO Part

Brooklyn

73.6

26.4

Percentage

(N=29)

JO Part

75.0

(N=8)

Non JO Part

Bronx

65.5

34.5

25.0

100.0

(N=53)

JO Part

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

69.8

30.2

Non JO Part

75.8

24.2

(N=15) (N=33)

JO Part

Queens

86.7

13.3

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

72.2

27.8

Non JO Part

70.2

29.8

(N=169) (N=47)

JO Part

Citywide

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough:

-86-

-87-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

5.2%

2.7%

1.9%

0 3 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

74.0%

75.7%

40 14 54

74.1% 25.9% 100.0%

14 7 21

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

6 1 7

20.8%

13 2 15

2.1%

CITYWIDE N % 7

3.2%

1 4 5

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal B FELONIES:

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

72.2%

89.6%

167

77.3%

24 14 38

63.2% 36.8% 100.0%

13 2 15

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

91 37 128

71.1% 28.9% 100.0%

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25 3 28

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

33 6 39

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

21.6%

25.9%

8.3%

19.4%

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

5 2 7

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

12 2 14

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

0 0

30 6 36

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

100.0%

53 19 72

73.6% 26.4% 100.0%

19 10 29

65.5% 34.5% 100.0%

2 3 5

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

6 2 8

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal ALL CHARGES:

0 4 4

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 6 6

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

216

100.0%

37 16 53

69.8% 30.2% 100.0%

13 2 15

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

122 47 169

72.2% 27.8% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25 8 33

75.8% 24.2% 100.0%

33 14 47

70.2% 29.8% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

C or D Felonies (N=41)

9.5

12.5

(N=164)

B Felonies

11.5

Median Number of Appearances

Remand

(N=212)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only seven cases were sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 6D Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-88-

-89-

Table 6d Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

14.0

18.0

39.0

18.0

0 0 0 4

18.0

0 0 0 1

14.0

0 0 0 1

18.0

0 0 0 1

39.0

0 0 0 7

18.0

11.0

10.5

16.0

6.0

164

11.0

21 13 5 18

12.0 11.0 13.0 9.5

9 2 2 15

10.0 11.5 8.0 12.0

14 1 2 21

15.5 12.0 15.5 16.0

15 6 1 19

3.0 4.5 5.0 7.0

59 22 10 73

11.0 11.0 11.5 11.0

9.5

12.0

17.0

6.0

12.0

4 4 2 6

8.5 9.5 11.0 11.0

2 0 1 5

21.0 0.0 7.0 12.0

5 1 1 6

14.0 18.0 23.0 17.0

3 0 0 1

3.0 9.0

14 5 4 18

9.5 13.0 11.0 12.5

11.0

16.5

6.0

212

11.0

25 17 7 28

12.0 11.0 12.0 10.5

11 2 3 21

11.0 11.5 7.0 12.0

19 2 3 28

14.0 15.0 17.0 17.0

18 6 1 21

3.0 4.5 5.0 7.0

73 27 14 98

11.0 11.0 11.0 12.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 4 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

248

C or D Felonies (N=41)

195

(N=164)

216.5

229

245

265.5

B Felonies

265.5

Median Number of Days

269 248

Remand

233.5 241.5

(N=212)

All Charges

262

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only seven cases were sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6E Median Number Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-90-

-91-

Table 6e Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

277.0

465.0

503.0

1089.0

350.0

0 0 0 4

277.0

0 0 0 1

465.0

0 0 0 1

503.0

0 0 0 1

1089.0

0 0 0 7

350.0

237.0

215.0

367.5

63.0

164

238.0

21 13 5 18

255.0 269.0 244.0 114.0

9 2 2 15

214.0 338.5 189.0 216.0

14 1 2 21

368.0 354.0 379.5 375.0

15 6 1 19

63.0 99.0 53.0 76.0

59 22 10 73

248.0 265.5 216.5 229.0

172.5

274.5

321.0

53.5

254.0

4 4 2 6

202.5 183.0 274.0 139.0

2 0 1 5

427.5 154.0 266.0

5 1 1 6

317.0 479.0 308.0 335.5

3 0 0 1

36.0 71.0

14 5 4 18

245.0 195.0 265.5 269.0

224.0

248.0

357.0

63.5

212

245.0

25 17 7 28

248.0 262.0 244.0 134.5

11 2 3 21

245.0 338.5 189.0 252.0

19 2 3 28

360.0 416.5 350.0 364.0

18 6 1 21

63.0 99.0 53.0 76.0

73 27 14 98

248.0 262.0 233.5 241.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 4 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

C or D Felonies (N=42)

8.5

(N=167)

12.5

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=216)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only seven cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-92-

-93-

Table 6f Median Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

14.0

18.0

39.0

18.0

3 1

17.0 25.0

1 0

14.0 -

1 0

18.0 -

0 1

39.0

5 2

17.0 32.0

11.0

10.5

16.0

6.0

167

11.0

54 3

11.0 17.0

21 7

11.0 3.0

38 1

16.0 15.0

15 28

9.0 3.0

128 39

12.0 3.0

9.5

12.0

15.5

6.0

12.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

15 1

10.0 8.0

7 1

12.0 10.0

14 0

15.5 -

0 4

6.0

36 6

12.5 8.5

ALL CHARGES:

11.0

16.0

6.0

216

11.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

72 5

11.0 17.0

29 8

12.0 3.0

53 1

16.0 15.0

15 33

9.0 3.0

169 47

12.0 5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part C OR D FELONIES:

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category.

C or D Felonies (N=42)

(N=167)

277.5

B Felonies

264.5

Median Number of Days

(N=216)

All Charges

272

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only seven cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2000 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 6G Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-94-

-95-

Table 6g Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

277.0

465.0

503.0

1089.0

350.0

3 1

293.0 261.0

1 0

465.0 -

1 0

503.0 -

0 1

1089.0

5 2

350.0 675.0

237.0

215.0

360.0

63.0

167

238.0

54 3

231.0 244.0

21 7

248.0 47.0

38 1

357.0 437.0

15 28

146.0 57.0

128 39

264.5 57.0

172.5

274.5

319.0

53.5

253.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

15 1

174.0 91.0

7 1

283.0 189.0

14 0

319.0 -

0 4

53.5

36 6

277.5 81.0

ALL CHARGES:

224.0

248.0

353.5

63.5

216

244.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

72 5

223.5 244.0

29 8

265.0 47.0

53 1

353.0 437.0

15 33

146.0 57.0

169 47

272.0 62.0

JO Part Non-JO Part B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part C OR D FELONIES:

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category.

-96Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2000 (Second half of FY 2000 through First half of FY 2001; January - December, 2000)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 205 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, a decrease of 33 percent from the previous reporting period, which followed a 21 percent decrease. As shown in Exhibit 7A, one percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2000, fewer than in any previous reporting period. The failure-toappear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2000 for juveniles arraigned in 2000 and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2000. Table 7a presents the failure-to-appear (FTA) rate17 by arraignment release status by borough for cases arraigned in Criminal Court. Both of the juveniles who failed to appear during the reporting period had secured release on recognizance at arraignment in Criminal Court in Brooklyn, an FTA rate of barely three percent in that borough. None of the juveniles released on bail at arraignment failed to appear, as in 1999, but this finding should be viewed cautiously since only so few defendants (26) secure release on bail at Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 7B presents FTA rates in Supreme Court for juveniles who were released at the first Supreme Court appearance and Table 7b presents the Supreme Court FTA data by release status and borough. The FTA rate in Supreme Court (13%)18 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it was in previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (15%, compared to 1% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (9%, compared to none in Criminal Court). The combined FTA rate in Supreme Court for juveniles released at the first appearance in the upper court on bail or on ROR was the same as reported for 1999 (13%), which was lower than reported for 1998 (16%), but higher than for 1997 (10%).

The FTA rate presented here is a case-based, not an appearance-based, rate. The number of cases in which a warrant was issued for failure to appear during the reporting period was divided by the total number of cases. For an appearance-based rate, the number of missed appearances would be divided by the total number of appearances scheduled during the reporting period.

The Supreme Court FTA data discussed here does not include failure to appear at the first Supreme Court appearance because the data were collected and reported by release status at the first appearance and the release status field is blank when a warrant is ordered.

-97-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2000 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 99.0%

Yes 1.0%

(N=205)

0 10

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

4 235

239

0 4

2 145

1.7% 98.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.7%

1.4% 98.6% 100.0%

61.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.2%

2.6% 97.4% 100.0%

32.6%

2 104

106

0 7

2 48

0 5

0 44

1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.6%

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

47.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

41.5%

1 113

114

0 2

1 74

0 3

0 34

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.8%

1.3% 98.7% 100.0%

65.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

29.8%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

0 109

109

0 4

0 74

0 8

0 23

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

67.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.1%

Queens %

7 561

568

0 17

5 341

346

0 26

2 177

179

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.0%

1.4% 98.6% 100.0%

60.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.6%

1.1% 98.9% 100.0%

31.5%

CITYWIDE N %

* The total excludes 3 juveniles citywide for whom the release status set at Criminal Court arraignment was not available.

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued TOTAL

TOTAL*

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

147

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

2 76

Brooklyn N %

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

ROR

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court by Criminal Court Arraignment Release Status and Borough for 2000 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

Table 7a

-98-

-99-

Exhibit 7B Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court For Defendants Released at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 2000 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 12.9%

No 87.1%

(N=93)

2 13

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

14 79

1 2

0 7

10 37

15.1% 84.9% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

3.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.5%

21.3% 78.7% 100.0%

50.5%

13.3% 86.7% 100.0%

16.1%

4.8% 95.2% 100.0%

22.6%

2 33

0 1

1 14

0 9

1 5

0 4

5.7% 94.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.9%

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

42.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25.7%

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

17.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.4%

5 53

0 0

0 22

1 12

0 8

4 11

8.6% 91.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

37.9%

7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

22.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13.8%

26.7% 73.3% 100.0%

25.9%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

4 42

0 2 2

0 10

0 4

4 16

8.7% 91.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8.7%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

43.5%

Queens %

25 207

232

1 5

1 53

11 68

3 30

9 51

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

100.0%

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

2.6%

1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

23.3%

13.9% 86.1% 100.0%

34.1%

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

14.2%

15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

25.9%

CITYWIDE N %

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued TOTAL

TOTAL

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

RELEASE STATUS MISSING:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

BAIL SET AND MADE:

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE:

1 20

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

ROR:

RELEASE STATUS

Brooklyn N %

Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court by Release Status at the First Supreme Court Appearance and Borough for 2000 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-100-

-101-

APPENDIX A JUVENILE OFFENSES Offense

Penal Law

Felony Class

Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree Arson in the first degree Arson in the second degree Assault in the first degree Burglary in the first degree Burglary in the second degree Kidnapping in the first degree Attempted kidnapping in the first degree Possession of a weapon in the second degree Possession of a weapon in the third degree Manslaughter in the first degree Murder in the second degree

130.70 150.20 150.15 120.10 (1) (2) 140.30 140.25 (1) 135.25 110/135.25 265.03* 265.02 (4)* 125.20 125.25 (1) (2) 125.25 (3)** 110/125.25 130.35 (1) (2) 160.15 160.10 (2) 130.50 (1) (2)

B A B B B C A B C D B A A B B B C B

Attempted murder in the second degree Rape in the first degree Robbery in the first degree Robbery in the second degree Sodomy in the first degree

* Added in November 1998, but only where the weapon is possessed on school grounds. ** But only where the underlying crime is also a JO offense.

Defendant Age 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15