Juveniles Report 01 by Administrator

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL USTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2001

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2002

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2001

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Dale Sealy Programmer/Analyst Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Assistant

November 2002

This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org/research/research.htm

ÂŠ 2002 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

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

Table 5e: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge at First Appearance by Borough .... 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

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 "waiverdown" rather than a "waiver-up" system typical in most states. In New York, when a fourteen- or 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, renamed Bridges Juvenile Center, in December 1999. 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 2001 (the second half of fiscal year 2001 and the first half of fiscal year 2002). 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:

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

1) To decrease the number of days spent in detention by defendants who could be safely released to the community; 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 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.

-3Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

matter to the agency responsible for prosecuting cases in the Family Court, the Corporation Counsel.3 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. 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.

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

The report covers the 2001 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. It is divided into seven sections: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Arrest; Criminal Court (CC) arraignment; Criminal Court disposition; Supreme Court (SC) first appearance; Supreme Court disposition; Supreme Court sentence; 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 32 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. 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

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 228, only 59 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. 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 1686 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. Fewer than three of every ten of these arrests were filed in adult court —1205 cases (72%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, nearly six of every ten were not transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (88%). 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.

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Arrests

1686

1205 (72%)

481 (28%)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

506

4 (0.8%)

502 (99%)

153 (31%)7

CC Dispositions

494

282 (57%)

212 (43%)

data not available

SC 1st Appearances

216

10 (5%)

206 (95%)

81 (40%)

SC Dispositions

226

27 (12%)

199 (88%)

107 (53%)

8 9

345 (69%) data not available

121 (60%) 95 (47%)

The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 498 cases, not 506, because release status is missing for the docket in four juvenile cases, and was not relevant for the four dockets that were dismissed. 8

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 202 cases, not 216, because of missing release status data and seven dismissals. 9

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 202, not 226, 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1686 arrests for JO offenses in 2001. This is lower than the 1809 arrests reported in 2000 and much lower than the roughly 2400 reported in 1998 and 1999. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1, second degree robbery was the most serious charge for more than 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 2001, only eight of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first degree kidnapping, or first degree arson) compared to 19 arrests in 2000. 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 51 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 JO arrests. These two weapon offenses account for eight percent of the arrests for JO offenses in 2001. As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, arrest offense type varies somewhat across the boroughs. While second degree robbery was the most frequent charge in every borough, the proportion this charge represented of all JO arrests was higher in Queens (56%) than in the other boroughs (48% to 51%). Arrests for second degree burglary account for roughly one of every ten JO arrests in Staten Island, the Bronx and Queens, compared to only six percent in Brooklyn and only five percent in Manhattan (Table 1a). The two weapon charges for which juveniles are eligible for prosecution in the adult court account for twelve percent of the Brooklyn and Staten Island JO arrests, seven percent of those in the Bronx and Manhattan, and only four percent in Queens. The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remains extremely small in each borough. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the volume is higher but remains small. Taken together, murder and attempted murder charges account for less than two percent of the JO arrests in 2001. Exhibit 1B shows that nearly six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varies very little by borough, ranging between 56 and 58. There were no JO arrests involving a thirteen-year-old in this reporting period. 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 three quarters of the A-felony arrests, and 63 percent of the B-felony arrests, and 55 percent of the C- or D-felony arrests.

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

Not surprisingly, most arrestees for JO offenses were male (86%, 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 a spread of less than five percentage points across the four largest boroughs. Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, eleven percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to fifteen 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, seven of every ten of the 2001 JO arrests were not docketed.10 The proportion prosecuted in 2001 (28%) is lower than the proportions reported for 2000, 1999 and 1998 when prosecutors filed a case in adult court for 32, 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: 2001 JO Arrests

Other* 14.5% Burglary 1 0.7% Burglary 2 8.1%

Murder 2 0.4% Robbery 1 20.0%

Assault 1 4.3% Att. Murder 2 0.9%

Robbery 2 51.1%

(N=1,686)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=664)

Percentage

0.3 0.5

20.8

49.5

4.1

24.8

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=273)

1.5 0.4

24.9

50.9

5.9

16.5

1.1

20.7

56.2

2.4

19.6

Assault 1

Queens (N=377)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=340)

1.8 0.9

14.4

48.5

5.9

28.5

Att. Murder 2

2001 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Staten Is. (N=32)

Other*

15.6

50.0

34.4

-10-

664

340

100.0%

48.5% 10.3% 2.6% 4.7%

66.2%

1.8% 14.4% 5.9% 0.0% 2.9% 4.4% 0.0% 1.2% 2.1% 0.0%

32.6%

0.9% 0.3% 0.0%

1.2%

273

139 13 6 12

170

4 68 16 0 6 4 0 3 1 0

102

1 0 0

100.0%

50.9% 4.8% 2.2% 4.4%

62.3%

1.5% 24.9% 5.9% 0.0% 2.2% 1.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0%

37.4%

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0.4%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

377

212 46 4 10

272

4 78 9 0 2 8 0 0 4 0

105

0 0 0

100.0%

56.2% 12.2% 1.1% 2.7%

72.1%

1.1% 20.7% 2.4% 0.0% 0.5% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

27.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens N %

16 3 1 3

0 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

16 338 72 0 37 49 2 12 12 0

538

7 1 0

861 137 51 91

100.0% 1686

50.0% 9.4% 3.1% 9.4%

100.0%

51.1% 8.1% 3.0% 5.4%

67.6%

0.9% 20.0% 4.3% 0.0% 2.2% 2.9% 0.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0%

31.9%

0.4% 0.1% 0.0%

0.5%

CITYWIDE N %

71.9% 1140

0.0% 15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

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 represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

TOTAL

165 35 9 16

329 40 31 50

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

225

6 49 20 0 10 15 0 4 7 0

111

3 1 0

Bronx N %

49.5% 6.0% 4.7% 7.5%

67.8%

450

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

31.8%

211 0.3% 20.8% 4.1% 0.0% 2.4% 3.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

3 0 0

Brooklyn % N

2 138 27 0 16 21 2 5 0 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)

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arrest Charge by Borough for 2001 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=664)

Percentage

42.6

57.4

Bronx (N=340)

41.8

58.2

Manhattan (N=273)

42.5

57.5

Queens (N=367)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2001 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

43.1

56.9

Staten Is. (N=32)

43.8

56.2

Citywide (N=1676)

42.5

57.5

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 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 % 0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.5%

1.2%

0.4%

0 1 2

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 1 3

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

211

31.8%

111

32.6%

102

37.4%

105

28.6%

0 83 128

0.0% 39.3% 60.7% 100.0%

0 40 71

0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 100.0%

0 39 63

0.0% 38.2% 61.8% 100.0%

0 33 72

0.0% 31.4% 68.6% 100.0%

0 4 5

450

67.8%

225

66.2%

170

62.3%

262

71.4%

0 199 251

0.0% 44.2% 55.8% 100.0%

0 101 124

0.0% 44.9% 55.1% 100.0%

0 77 93

0.0% 45.3% 54.7% 100.0%

0 125 137

664

100.0%

340

100.0%

273

100.0%

0 283 381

0.0% 42.6% 57.4% 100.0%

0 142 198

0.0% 41.8% 58.2% 100.0%

0 116 157

0.0% 42.5% 57.5% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

0.5%

0 2 6

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

28.1%

538

32.1%

0.0% 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

0 199 339

0.0% 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

71.9%

1130

67.4%

0.0% 47.7% 52.3% 100.0%

0 10 13

0.0% 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%

0 512 618

0.0% 45.3% 54.7% 100.0%

367

100.0%

1676

100.0%

0 158 209

0.0% 43.1% 56.9% 100.0%

0 14 18

0.0% 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%

0 713 963

0.0% 42.5% 57.5% 100.0%

0 0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=664)

Percentage

87.5

12.5

Bronx (N=340)

84.4

15.6

Manhattan (N=272)

84.6

15.4

Queens (N=377)

Gender Males Females

2001 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

88.9

11.1

Staten Is. (N=32)

75.0

25.0

Citywide (N=1685)

86.5

13.5

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 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 % 0.0%

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE %

0.5%

1.2%

0.4%

0.5%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

7 1

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

211

31.8%

111

32.6%

102

37.5%

105

27.9%

28.1%

538

31.9%

201 10

95.3% 4.7% 100.0%

90 21

81.1% 18.9% 100.0%

91 11

89.2% 10.8% 100.0%

92 13

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

5 4

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%

479 59

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

450

67.8%

225

66.2%

169

62.1%

272

72.1%

71.9% 1139

67.6%

377 73

83.8% 16.2% 100.0%

194 31

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

138 31

81.7% 18.3% 100.0%

243 29

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

19 4

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

971 168

85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

664

100.0%

340

100.0%

272

100.0%

377

100.0%

100.0% 1685

100.0%

581 83

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

287 53

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

230 42

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

335 42

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

24 8

75.0% 1457 25.0% 228 100.0%

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=664)

Percentage

70.6

29.4

Bronx (N=340)

70.6

29.4

Manhattan (N=273)

64.1

35.9

Queens (N=377)

78.0

22.0

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2001 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=32)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

84.4

15.6

Citywide (N=1686)

71.5

28.5

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

0.5%

1.2%

0.4%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

211

31.8%

111

32.6%

102

37.4%

105

27.9%

80 131

37.9% 62.1% 100.0%

41 70

36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

25 77

24.5% 75.5% 100.0%

36 69

34.3% 65.7% 100.0%

5 4

450

67.8%

225

66.2%

170

62.3%

272

72.1%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

387 63

86.0% 14.0% 100.0%

197 28

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

150 20

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

258 14

ALL CHARGES:

664

100.0%

340

100.0%

273

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

469 195

70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

240 100

70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

175 98

64.1% 35.9% 100.0%

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

0.0%

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

0.5%

4 4

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

28.1%

538

31.9%

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%

187 351

34.8% 65.2% 100.0%

71.9% 1140

67.6%

94.9% 5.1% 100.0%

22 1

95.7% 1014 4.3% 126 100.0%

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

377

100.0%

100.0% 1686

100.0%

294 83

78.0% 22.0% 100.0%

27 5

84.4% 1205 15.6% 481 100.0%

71.5% 28.5% 100.0%

0 0

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001) (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 50611 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, eleven percent fewer than the 571 arraigned in 2000, and fewer than in any previous year in this report series. The decrease in arraignment volume is visible in each borough, ranging from four percent in the Bronx and eight percent in Manhattan to fourteen and sixteen percents in Brooklyn and Queens, respectively. The volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants decreased by about a third from 1999 to 2000, and the size of the decrease ranged from 28 percent to 38 percent across the boroughs. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that a majority of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (51%), and another quarter were for second degree robbery (27%). 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 2000. 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. 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, 35 percent of cases for juveniles charged with a B felony at arrest were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to 89 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 by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. The proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery varied widely, from a high of 66 percent for Queens, to a low of 47 percent for both the Bronx and Brooklyn. 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 arraignment. Together, first and second degree robbery account for nearly nine of every ten JO arraignments in Queens, and nearly eight of every ten in Manhattan and Brooklyn, but still only 65 percent of the Bronx arraignments. The Bronx does not show a particularly high proportion of arraigned dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges as was true in 2000. Instead, the Bronx shows the highest volume and percent of arraigned 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, 2001) (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

juveniles with assault (13) or arson (7) charges. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.12 There were very few dismissals (4) or transfers to Family Court (0) at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that only 28 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide. The rate of ROR is lower than the rate in 2000 (32%) and much lower than in previous reporting periods. The citywide decrease in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally evident in each of the boroughs. The ROR rates for juveniles at arraignments in 2001 in Manhattan and Brooklyn are virtually the same as in 2000. At the same time, ROR rates dropped sharply in the Bronx and Queens. In the Bronx, the ROR rate at arraignment was 42 percent in 2000 in cases with juvenile defendants, compared to only 30 percent in 2001. In Queens, the ROR rate dropped from 21 percent in 2000 to only fourteen percent in 2001. Borough differences in the arraignment ROR rate were less prominent in 2001 than previously. The highest ROR rate is in Brooklyn (32%), followed closely by the Bronx and Manhattan (30%), and the lowest ROR rate is in Queens (14%). 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 three percent citywide, ranging from one percent (and one juvenile) in Manhattan and Queens to three percent in Brooklyn and five percent in the Bronx. The juveniles arraigned in Queens showed higher rates of detention at arraignment (85%) than did those arraigned in other boroughs (69% in Manhattan, 65% in both Brooklyn and the Bronx). Citywide, 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, each of the four juveniles arraigned on A-felony charges was remanded with no bail set; this is in contrast to only two percent (7 juveniles) 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 26 percent, as compared to 35 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 2001, the largest group of cases, the proportion released on ROR was highest in Brooklyn (32%), lower in the Bronx (27%) and Manhattan (26%), and far lower in Queens (12%). The borough differences are even wider at the C- and D-felony level. The juveniles were released on ROR in 46 percent of the cases filed with C- or D-felony charges in the Bronx and 43 percent in Manhattan, but in only one third of cases of similar severity in Brooklyn and in only one fifth of those in Queens. Close examination of the ROR rates by charge severity within borough shows that the severity of the charge makes little difference to a juvenile’s likelihood of release on recognizance in Brooklyn or Queens, but makes a large difference in the Bronx (19 percentage points) and Manhattan (17 percentage points). 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, 2001) (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 37 percent of females were released on ROR (down from 42% in 2000, 53% in 1999 and 58% in 1998), as compared to 27 percent of males (compared to 30% in 2000, 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 2001 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 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 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 2001, nearly three quarters of 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 more than 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 2001. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then nearly 95 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2001 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2001 were no more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. Only 27 percent of the juveniles in the positive recommendation category, compared to 32 percent of those who were not recommended, were ROR’d at arraignment. However, very few arraigned juveniles were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment. In 2001, only 19 juveniles were not recommended on this basis, compared to 26 juveniles in 2000.

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2001 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 51.3%

Att. Murder 2 2.6%

Murder 2 0.8%

Other* 11.3% Robbery 2 26.7%

Assault 1 7.3%

(N=506)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=206)

Percentage

2.4

46.6

33.0

5.3

12.6

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=106) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

2.9 1.9

46.6

18.4

12.6

17.5

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=103)

Att. Murder 2

2001 JO Arraignments

2.8 0.9

52.8

26.4

9.4

7.5

Assault 1

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=91)

Other*

2.2 1.1

65.9

22.0

5.5 3.3

-22-

100.0%

206

19 1 1 1

3 48 13 0 1 4 0 3 7 0

2 0 0

103

100.0%

18.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

21.4%

2.9% 46.6% 12.6% 0.0% 1.0% 3.9% 0.0% 2.9% 6.8% 0.0%

76.7%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

106

28 0 0 1

3 56 10 0 3 2 0 1 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%

27.4%

2.8% 52.8% 9.4% 0.0% 2.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

71.7%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.9%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

20 0 1 0

2 60 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

1 0 0

100.0%

22.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

23.1%

2.2% 65.9% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0%

75.8%

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

1.1%

Queens %

4 0 0

506

135 2 4 3

144

13 260 37 0 16 13 0 8 11 0

100.0%

26.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6%

28.5%

2.6% 51.4% 7.3% 0.0% 3.2% 2.6% 0.0% 1.6% 2.2% 0.0%

70.8%

0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

0.8%

CITYWIDE %

358

TOTAL

33.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%

68 1 2 1

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

35.0%

2.4% 46.6% 5.3% 0.0% 5.8% 2.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

65.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

5 96 11 0 12 6 0 4 0 0

134

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2001 JO Arraignment

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=205)

Percentage

32.2

2.9

64.9

ROR

Bronx (N=102)

30.4

4.9

59.8

4.9

Manhattan (N=102)

30.4

1.0

64.7

3.9

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2001 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=89)

13.5

1.1

83.1

2.2

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

Citywide (N=498)

28.1

2.6

67.1

2.2

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.0%

1.0%

1.1%

0.8%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

133

64.9%

76.5%

71.6%

75.3%

351

70.5%

42 4 87 0

31.6% 3.0% 65.4% 0.0% 100.0%

21 5 49 3

26.9% 6.4% 62.8% 3.8% 100.0%

19 1 50 3

26.0% 1.4% 68.5% 4.1% 100.0%

8 0 58 1

11.9% 0.0% 86.6% 1.5% 100.0%

90 10 244 7

25.6% 2.8% 69.5% 2.0% 100.0%

35.1%

21.6%

27.5%

23.6%

143

28.7%

24 2 46 0

33.3% 2.8% 63.9% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 12 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 16 0

42.9% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 16 0

19.0% 4.8% 76.2% 0.0% 100.0%

50 3 90 0

35.0% 2.1% 62.9% 0.0% 100.0%

205

100.0%

102

100.0%

102

100.0%

498

100.0%

66 6 133 0

32.2% 2.9% 64.9% 0.0% 100.0%

31 5 61 5

30.4% 4.9% 59.8% 4.9% 100.0%

31 1 66 4

30.4% 1.0% 64.7% 3.9% 100.0%

12 1 74 2

13.5% 1.1% 83.1% 2.2% 100.0%

140 13 334 11

28.1% 2.6% 67.1% 2.2% 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 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals and 4 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Not Made 68.3%

Females (N=59)

Bail Set/Not Made 61.0%

ROR 37.3%

Males

Remand 2.5%

ROR 26.9%

(N=439)

Bail Set/Made 2.3%

2001 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Made 1.7%

-26-

66 6 133 0

205

10 0 17 0

56 6 116 0

178

32.2% 2.9% 64.9% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

37.0% 0.0% 63.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13.2%

31.5% 3.4% 65.2% 0.0% 100.0%

86.8%

Brooklyn N %

31 3 63 5

102

6 0 9 0

25 3 54 5

30.4% 2.9% 61.8% 4.9% 100.0%

100.0%

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14.7%

28.7% 3.4% 62.1% 5.7% 100.0%

85.3%

31 1 66 4

102

1 0 6 0

30 1 60 4

30.4% 1.0% 64.7% 3.9% 100.0%

100.0%

14.3% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 100.0%

6.9%

31.6% 1.1% 63.2% 4.2% 100.0%

93.1%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % N

12 1 74 2

5 1 4 0

7 0 70 2

13.5% 1.1% 83.1% 2.2% 100.0%

100.0%

50.0% 10.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11.2%

8.9% 0.0% 88.6% 2.5% 100.0%

88.8%

Queens %

140 11 336 11

498

* Excludes 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals and 4 for which arraignment release status was not available

22 1 36 0

118 10 300 11

439

28.1% 2.2% 67.5% 2.2% 100.0%

100.0%

37.3% 1.7% 61.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11.8%

26.9% 2.3% 68.3% 2.5% 100.0%

88.2%

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 2001 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-27-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=205)

Percentage

74.6

2.4

22.9

Bronx (N=102)

66.7

1.0 1.0 6.9

24.5

Manhattan (N=102)

78.4

2.0

19.6

Queens (N=89)

68.5

1.1 5.6

24.7

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

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2001 JO Arraignments

Citywide (N=498)

72.7

0.4 0.2 3.8

22.9

-28-

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2001 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

153

74.6%

66.7%

78.4%

68.5%

362

72.7%

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

45 5 103 0

29.4% 3.3% 67.3% 0.0% 100.0%

20 5 43 0

29.4% 7.4% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

23 1 54 2

28.8% 1.3% 67.5% 2.5% 100.0%

10 1 50 0

16.4% 1.6% 82.0% 0.0% 100.0%

98 12 250 2

27.1% 3.3% 69.1% 0.6% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

2.4%

6.9%

2.0%

5.6%

3.8%

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

1 0 4 0

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 4 0

42.9% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 13 0

31.6% 0.0% 68.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

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 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

1.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.0%

0.2%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.1%

0.4%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

22.9%

24.5%

19.6%

24.7%

114

22.9%

20 1 26 0

42.6% 2.1% 55.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 13 4

32.0% 0.0% 52.0% 16.0% 100.0%

6 0 12 2

30.0% 0.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100.0%

2 0 18 2

9.1% 0.0% 81.8% 9.1% 100.0%

36 1 69 8

31.6% 0.9% 60.5% 7.0% 100.0%

205

100.0%

102

100.0%

102

100.0%

498

100.0%

66 6 133 0

32.2% 2.9% 64.9% 0.0% 100.0%

31 5 61 5

30.4% 4.9% 59.8% 4.9% 100.0%

31 1 66 4

30.4% 1.0% 64.7% 3.9% 100.0%

12 1 74 2

13.5% 1.1% 83.1% 2.2% 100.0%

140 13 334 11

28.1% 2.6% 67.1% 2.2% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals and 4 for which arraignment release status was not available

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 494 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, a sixteen percent decrease from the 587 dockets disposed in 2000, which was, in turn one third lower than the 871 dockets disposed in 1999. 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, more than four of every ten of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, slightly higher than the 40 percent rate for 2000, but still lower than the rate for 1999 (46%) and the previous years. Again, there are borough differences, with Queens (74%), followed by Manhattan (54%), showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 30% in Brooklyn and 35% in the Bronx). Borough differences are also evident in the change in the proportion of disposed dockets sent to the upper court. The increase in the size of the transfer rate was huge in Queens (from 42% in 2000 to 74% in 2001), strong in Manhattan (from 48% to 54%), and small in the Bronx (from 33% to 35%). In contrast, the rate of transfer to the upper court decreased in Brooklyn from 37 percent in 2000 down to 30 percent in 2001. Further, more than a quarter 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 (50%) and Manhattan (40%) had the highest dismissal rates, followed by Brooklyn (18%) and Queens (8%). The enormous range across the boroughs here may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.14 Manhattan also showed the lowest rate of transfer to Family Court (6%) while the transfer rates were higher in the Bronx (16%) and Queens (19%) and much higher in Brooklyn (54%). Citywide, three of every ten JO cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the reporting period were transferred to Family Court, the same proportion as in 2000 and 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 disposition in Criminal Court, either through a dismissal or by transfer to Family Court, is higher when the charge is more severe. Half of the B-felony dockets were transferred to Supreme Court, as compared to a quarter of the 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. 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. 14

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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

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 2001 was 3, as it was in the previous reporting period. The median remained at 3 in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, and decreased from 4 to 3 appearances in the Bronx. The median increased from 3 to 5 in Queens, reversing the decrease in that borough in 2000 from 5 to 3 appearances. As in the previous reporting period, 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 no difference in the number of appearances by severity of affidavit charge except in the Bronx where the median number of appearance was greater for cases charged at the B-felony level than for cases with C- or D-felony charges. The median number of days in Criminal Court (14 days) was slightly lower than during the previous period (16 days), but here there were wide borough differences (Table 3d). The median number of days in Criminal Court was shortest in Brooklyn (5), followed by Manhattan (12) and the Bronx (13), and longest in Queens (31). The median number of days decreased in the Bronx by four days and decreased sharply in Brooklyn, from 13 days in 2000 to only 5 days in 2001. At the same time, the median increased by two days in Manhattan, and increased by more than a week in Queens, from 22 days in 2000 to 31 days during this reporting period. 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 cases where the juvenile was released than for those where the juvenile was detained, 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 four 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. Citywide, in this reporting period, B felony cases took twice as long to reach disposition in Criminal Court as did C or D felony cases (16 days, compared to 8 days), but this is not characteristic of the pattern of length of case in any single borough, nor was it true in previous reporting periods.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=206)

Percentage

2.4

49.0

30.6

5.8

12.1

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=99)

3.0 1.0

54.5

22.2

9.1

10.1

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=109)

2.8 1.8

47.7

20.2

10.1

17.4

Att. Murder 2

6.3 1.3

67.5

16.3

5.0 3.8

Assault 1

Queens (N=80)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

2001 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=494)

Other*

3.2 0.8

52.8

24.3

7.1

11.7

-32-

100.0%

206

22 1 1 1

3 52 11 0 3 3 0 3 7 0

2 0 0

109

100.0%

20.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

22.9%

2.8% 47.7% 10.1% 0.0% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 2.8% 6.4% 0.0%

75.2%

1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

1.8%

22 0 0 1

3 54 9 0 3 3 0 2 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

23.2%

3.0% 54.5% 9.1% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%

75.8%

1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

13 0 0 0

5 54 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

1 0 0

100.0%

16.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16.3%

6.3% 67.5% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%

82.5%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

Queens %

4 0 0

494

120 2 2 3

127

16 261 35 0 18 13 0 9 11 0

100.0%

24.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6%

25.7%

3.2% 52.8% 7.1% 0.0% 3.6% 2.6% 0.0% 1.8% 2.2% 0.0%

73.5%

0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

0.8%

CITYWIDE %

363

TOTAL

30.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

63 1 1 1

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

32.0%

2.4% 49.0% 5.8% 0.0% 5.8% 2.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

68.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

5 101 12 0 12 6 0 4 0 0

140

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2001 JO Criminal Court Disposition

Table 3a

-33-

100%

[494]

Citywide

[80]

Queens

[99]

Manhattan

[109]

Bronx

[206]

Brooklyn

50%

(6.1)

25%

(18.8)

(27.5)

(40.4)

(49.5)

50%

(53.5)

75%

(73.8)

Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(42.9)

(34.9)

(30.1)

Transfers To FC

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

(7.5)

(17.5)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(29.6)

(15.6)

(52.4)

Dismissals

2001 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=363)

24.0%

B Felonies

27.0%

(N=4)

25.0%

49.0%

Dismissals

A Felonies

75.0%

Percent

Transfers to SC

(N=127)

C or D Felonies

24.4%

29.1%

46.5%

Transfers to FC

2001 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

27.5%

29.6%

(N=494)

All Charges

42.9%

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 2001 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

1.8%

1.0%

1.3%

0.8%

1 1 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 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%

1 3 0 0

25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

140

68.0%

75.2%

75.8%

82.5%

363

73.5%

27 51 62 0

19.3% 36.4% 44.3% 0.0% 100.0%

40 33 9 0

48.8% 40.2% 11.0% 0.0% 100.0%

27 43 5 0

36.0% 57.3% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 51 11 0

6.1% 77.3% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

98 178 87 0

27.0% 49.0% 24.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32.0%

22.9%

23.2%

16.3%

127

25.7%

9 11 46 0

13.6% 16.7% 69.7% 0.0% 100.0%

13 4 8 0

52.0% 16.0% 32.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 9 1 0

56.5% 39.1% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 7 4 0

15.4% 53.8% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

37 31 59 0

29.1% 24.4% 46.5% 0.0% 100.0%

206

100.0%

109

100.0%

494

100.0%

36 62 108 0

17.5% 30.1% 52.4% 0.0% 100.0%

54 38 17 0

49.5% 34.9% 15.6% 0.0% 100.0%

40 53 6 0

40.4% 53.5% 6.1% 0.0% 100.0%

6 59 15 0

7.5% 73.8% 18.8% 0.0% 100.0%

136 212 146 0

27.5% 42.9% 29.6% 0.0% 100.0%

B Felonies (N=358)

(N=4)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

Remand

(N=128)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

(N=489)

All Charges

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2001 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 2001 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

0.0

3.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

3.0

0 0 0 1

3.0

0 0 0 1

3.0

0 0 0 4

3.0

140

3.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

358

5.0

45 3 92 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

24 5 49 3

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

18 0 52 3

4.0 0.0 3.0 3.0

8 1 53 2

6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0

95 9 246 8

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

3.0

5.0

128

3.0

19 2 45 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

13 0 12 0

3.0 3.0 -

6 0 16 0

5.0 3.0 -

2 1 11 0

3.0 6.0 5.0 -

40 3 85 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

206

3.0

108

3.0

5.0

489

3.0

64 5 138 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

37 5 61 5

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

24 0 68 4

4.0 3.0 3.0

10 2 64 3

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

135 12 331 12

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 5 juveniles for whom release status at arraignment was not applicable or not available.

(N=358)

(N=4)

B Felonies

Remand

(N=127)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2001 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

13.5

(N=489)

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 2001 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

4.5

5.0

37.0

5.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

4.5

0 0 0 1

5.0

0 0 0 1

37.0

0 0 0 4

5.0

140

5.5

15.0

14.0

32.5

358

16.5

45 3 92 0

20.0 18.0 5.0 -

24 5 49 3

34.5 39.0 5.0 22.0

18 0 52 3

152.5 5.0 4.0

8 1 53 2

86.0 140.0 27.0 154.5

95 9 246 8

33.0 24.0 9.0 22.0

5.0

11.0

37.5

30.5

127

8.0

19 2 45 0

15.0 4.5 5.0 -

13 0 12 0

40.0 5.0 -

6 0 16 0

106.0 5.0 -

2 1 11 0

22.0 202.0 31.0 -

40 3 84 0

30.0 5.0 5.0 -

206

5.0

108

13.0

12.0

31.0

489

14.0

64 5 137 0

18.5 5.0 5.0 -

37 5 61 5

37.0 39.0 5.0 22.0

24 0 68 4

141.0 5.0 4.0

10 2 64 3

63.5 171.0 27.5 102.0

135 12 330 12

32.0 21.0 5.0 13.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 5 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of juvenile cases that reached Supreme Court in 2001 (216) is only slightly lower than in 2000 (232), which was much lower than in 1999 (372). The decrease was not reflected in all of the boroughs. The decrease was large in Brooklyn (from 93 cases arraigned in 2000 down to only 67 in 2001) and small in Manhattan (from 58 in 2000 down to 50 in 2001). There was no decrease in the Bronx (39 cases in 2001, up slightly to 35 in 2000) and Queens shows a substantial increase in the volume of cases arriving in the upper court (from 46 in 2000 to 60 in 2001). The volume of juvenile cases that reach the Supreme Court had shown the widest fluctuation in Queens: the decrease from 1999 to 2000 was greatest in Queens, and followed an increase from 1998 to 1999 in Queens that was also the largest across the boroughs. During this reporting period, Brooklyn cases account for nearly a third of cases at the first appearance in the upper court while Queens and Manhattan cases account for about quarter and Bronx cases account for about a fifth. 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 2001, 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 seven percent of cases that reached the upper court in the period. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for a fifth of all juvenile arrests during 2001, but half of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court in 2001. B-felony charges together account for less than a third of arrest charges in the year but nearly three quarters 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, nearly a quarter of the defendants in cases that reached Supreme Court in 2001 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, higher than the 18 percent in 2000 and 1999, but comparable to the 26 and 28 percent in 1998 and 1997, respectively. Half of the defendants pled not guilty at their first appearance, less than the 58 percent who pled not guilty in 2000 but comparable to the 48 percent who pled not guilty during the previous year. As in 2000, about 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. Borough differences are large. Queens again shows the highest proportion of cases where defendants pled guilty (62%), followed by the Bronx (20%). It is rare for 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

defendants in juvenile cases in Brooklyn (3%) or Manhattan (6%) to 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, to a lesser extent, in the Bronx, reflect differences in plea policies 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 eight of every ten juveniles who pled this early citywide. Among the comparatively smaller number of juveniles who faced C- or D-felony charges, the proportion of cases where juveniles pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance is far lower, but the rate is highest in Queens. 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 four of every ten cases, comparable to the rates in the previous reporting periods. Citywide, juveniles prosecuted in the Supreme Court were released on ROR at the first appearance in a quarter of all cases. Juveniles posted bail to secure release as of the date of the first appearance in fifteen 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 and 2000 data, the distribution of release status changed very little. Surprisingly, however, the citywide release rate did not vary by charge as it has in each of the previous periods in this reporting series. As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in four of every ten cases with B-felony charges or with C- or D-felony charges. However, juveniles who faced more severe felony charges were more likely to be released on bail and less likely to be released on ROR than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges. The release rates in the boroughs were not as stable as the citywide rates. In fact, the ROR rate declined in three of the four boroughs, with a sharp drop in Queens (from 46% in 2000, down to 25%). The increase in ROR in the Bronx was dramatic, up to 40 percent from only twelve percent in 2000. The ROR rate in the Bronx was also low in 1999 (19%) but had dropped from 50 percent in 1998. Changes in the ROR rates were reflected in complementary changes in the rates of bail releases. The proportion of cases with juveniles released on bail increased in Queens (from 9% in 2000, up to 27% in 2001) and, in a similar fashion, decreased in the Bronx (from 18% in 2000, down to only 9% in 2001). Queens shows the highest combined release rate among the boroughs during the reporting period (52%, down slightly from 55%), followed this year by the 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

Bronx (49%, up from 29%). The proportion of cases with juveniles who secured release on ROR or on bail as of the first appearance in the upper court dropped in both Brooklyn (from 40% in 2000 down to 33% in 2001) and Manhattan (from 40% in 2000 to 29% in 2001). The proportion of cases with juveniles remanded with no bail set increased somewhat in each borough except the Bronx, where the remand rate dropped by half, from 44 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2001. 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 (15 days), to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), one day shorter than in the previous reporting period. In previous years, cases with less severe charges tended to move more quickly to the upper court. In 2001, however, the five A-felony cases showed a median of 15 days, B-felony cases took a median of 15 days, and C- or D-felony cases took 14 days. Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. As in the previous reporting period, the median ranged from zero days in Queens to four weeks in Brooklyn. A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the juvenile cases that came to Supreme Court in Queens 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 to the first appearance in Supreme Court in Manhattan decreased by two days while the median number of days increased by two days in the Bronx. The increase in the median number of days to reach the upper court in the Bronx reflects a continuing 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. Citywide, in 2001, cases for juveniles who were released tended to move more quickly to Supreme Court than did the cases of juveniles who were held on bail, but the fewest days elapsed between Criminal and Supreme Court for cases where the juvenile was remanded with no bail set. However, this pattern is not clearly visible in each of the boroughs. Instead, the median number of days by release status in each borough follows the borough rankings in the number of days elapsed between the lower and upper courts. Within each release status category, Brooklyn cases took longest to reach the upper court, followed by case in the Bronx, and Manhattan, and Queens cases showed the lowest median number of days. 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: 2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 50.0%

Murder 2 2.8%

Att. Murder 2 4.6%

Other* 13.0% Robbery 2 20.4%

Assault 1 9.3%

(N=216)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

4.5

44.8

23.9

9.0

17.9

Murder 2

5.1

7.7

53.8

7.7

10.3

15.4

Manhattan (N=50)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=39)

Att. Murder 2

2.0 6.0

38.0

32.0

10.0

12.0

Assault 1

2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

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

Queens (N=60)

Other*

5.0 1.7

63.3

15.0

8.3

6.7

-45-

100.0%

3 0 0 1

3 21 4 0 1 1 0 3 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%

10.3%

7.7% 53.8% 10.3% 0.0% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0%

84.6%

5.1% 0.0% 0.0%

5.1%

16 0 0 1

1 19 5 0 2 2 0 1 0 0

3 0 0

100.0%

32.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

34.0%

2.0% 38.0% 10.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

60.0%

6.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

9 0 0 0

3 38 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

15.0%

5.0% 63.3% 8.3% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0%

83.3%

1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1.7%

Queens %

6 0 0

216

44 2 0 4

10 108 20 1 6 7 0 6 2 0

100.0%

20.4% 0.9% 0.0% 1.9%

23.1%

4.6% 50.0% 9.3% 0.5% 2.8% 3.2% 0.0% 2.8% 0.9% 0.0%

74.1%

2.8% 0.0% 0.0%

2.8%

CITYWIDE %

160

TOTAL

23.9% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%

16 2 0 2

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

29.9%

4.5% 44.8% 9.0% 0.0% 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0%

70.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

3 30 6 0 3 3 0 1 1 0

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearance

Table 4a

-46-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

3.0

67.2

4.5 1.5

22.4

1.5

Bronx (N=39)

20.5

43.6

10.3

25.6

Manhattan (N=50)

6.0

56.0

2.0

36.0

Disposition Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Transfer To Family Court Continued

Queens (N=60)

61.7

25.0

1.7

11.7

Dismissed Bench Warrant

2001 JO Supreme Court Appearances

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

Citywide (N=216)

23.1

48.6

1.4 3.2

23.1

0.5

-47-

-48-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal B FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal ALL CHARGES Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

5.1%

6.0%

1.7%

2.8%

0 1 1 0 0 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 0 0 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 5 1 0 0 0

0.0% 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

70.1%

84.6%

62.0%

83.3%

161

74.5%

1 31 1 2 11 1

2.1% 66.0% 2.1% 4.3% 23.4% 2.1% 100.0%

7 13 3 0 10 0

21.2% 39.4% 9.1% 0.0% 30.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 19 0 0 11 0

3.2% 61.3% 0.0% 0.0% 35.5% 0.0% 100.0%

34 12 0 0 4 0

68.0% 24.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 100.0%

43 75 4 2 36 1

26.7% 46.6% 2.5% 1.2% 22.4% 0.6% 100.0%

29.9%

10.3%

32.0%

15.0%

22.7%

1 14 0 1 4 0

5.0% 70.0% 0.0% 5.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 3 0 0 0 0

25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 6 1 0 7 0

12.5% 37.5% 6.3% 0.0% 43.8% 0.0% 100.0%

3 2 1 0 3 0

33.3% 22.2% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 25 2 1 14 0

14.3% 51.0% 4.1% 2.0% 28.6% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

216

100.0%

2 45 1 3 15 1

3.0% 67.2% 1.5% 4.5% 22.4% 1.5% 100.0%

8 17 4 0 10 0

20.5% 43.6% 10.3% 0.0% 25.6% 0.0% 100.0%

3 28 1 0 18 0

6.0% 56.0% 2.0% 0.0% 36.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37 15 1 0 7 0

61.7% 25.0% 1.7% 0.0% 11.7% 0.0% 100.0%

50 105 7 3 50 1

23.1% 48.6% 3.2% 1.4% 23.1% 0.5% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=63)

Percentage

17.5

15.9

54.0

12.7

40.0

8.6

28.6

22.9

Manhattan (N=48)

22.9

6.3

29.2

41.7

25.0

26.8

17.9

30.4

Remand

Queens (N=56)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=35)

ROR

2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=202)

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

24.8

15.3

33.7

26.2

-49-

-50-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2001 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.9%

6.3%

1.8%

2.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 5

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

71.4%

85.7%

62.5%

87.5%

154

76.2%

7 8 25 5

15.6% 17.8% 55.6% 11.1% 100.0%

10 3 10 7

33.3% 10.0% 33.3% 23.3% 100.0%

8 3 9 10

26.7% 10.0% 30.0% 33.3% 100.0%

11 14 8 16

22.4% 28.6% 16.3% 32.7% 100.0%

36 28 52 38

23.4% 18.2% 33.8% 24.7% 100.0%

28.6%

11.4%

31.3%

10.7%

21.3%

4 2 9 3

22.2% 11.1% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

4 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 5 7

20.0% 0.0% 33.3% 46.7% 100.0%

3 1 2 0

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14 3 16 10

32.6% 7.0% 37.2% 23.3% 100.0%

100.0%

202

100.0%

11 10 34 8

17.5% 15.9% 54.0% 12.7% 100.0%

14 3 10 8

40.0% 8.6% 28.6% 22.9% 100.0%

11 3 14 20

22.9% 6.3% 29.2% 41.7% 100.0%

14 15 10 17

25.0% 26.8% 17.9% 30.4% 100.0%

50 31 68 53

24.8% 15.3% 33.7% 26.2% 100.0%

B Felonies (N=148)

(N=5)

14.5

22.5

Remand

(N=41)

C or D Felonies

12.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2001 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

9.5

(N=194)

All Charges

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 2001 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

15.0

7.0

21.0

15.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

15.0

0 0 0 3

7.0

0 0 0 1

21.0

0 0 0 5

15.0

27.0

18.0

8.0

0.0

148

15.0

7 8 23 5

20.0 26.5 29.0 28.0

10 3 10 6

17.5 28.0 17.5 14.0

8 3 9 10

10.0 15.0 15.0 6.0

11 12 7 16

0.0 3.0 14.0 0.0

36 26 49 37

6.0 14.5 20.0 2.0

28.5

18.5

10.0

7.0

14.0

4 2 7 3

28.0 30.5 35.0 20.0

4 0 0 0

18.5 -

3 0 5 7

9.0 14.0 8.0

3 1 2 0

0.0 14.0 14.0 -

14 3 14 10

12.5 29.0 22.5 10.0

28.0

17.5

9.0

0.0

194

15.0

11 10 30 8

21.0 28.0 29.5 27.5

14 3 10 7

17.5 28.0 17.5 14.0

11 3 14 20

9.0 15.0 14.5 7.0

14 13 9 17

0.0 6.0 14.0 0.0

50 29 63 52

9.5 15.0 21.0 7.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 22 cases: 7 dismissals, 3 transfer to Family Court, 7 cases missing release status, and 5 missing number of days

-53Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 226 cases of juvenile offenders reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2000, a twelve percent decrease from the 258 disposed in the upper court in 2000. Borough comparisons in the volume of cases disposed in 2001 and 2000 in the upper courts show no change in the Bronx (37 cases) and little change in Queens (53, down from 55), but a decrease of fifteen percent in Brooklyn (75, down from 88) and of 22 percent in Manhattan (61, down from 78). The result is only small shifts of a few percentage points in the borough composition of the citywide dispositions of juvenile cases in the Supreme Court. Brooklyn still accounts for about a third of all of the dispositions, followed by Manhattan (27%) and Queens (23%) and the Bronx (16%). 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 more than seven of every ten dispositions. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault which accounts for nine percent of Supreme Court dispositions. A-felony charges account for two percent of disposed cases, B-felony charges account for about nearly 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 62 percent in the Bronx and 65 percent in Brooklyn to 77 and 80 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 again declined six percentage points. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high: Overall, 88 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, down from 93 percent in 2000 but up from 83 percent in 1999. The conviction rates in Manhattan (98%) and Queens (91%) were particularly high compared to the Bronx (86%) and Brooklyn (79%). The citywide decrease in conviction rates was reflected in each borough except Manhattan. Juvenile cases disposed at the B-felony level were only slightly more likely to show convictions (90%) than were the cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (84%), and the decrease in conviction rates was minimal at the B-felony level (4 percentage points) and larger at the lower severity level (8 percentage points). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, more than half (53%) 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 higher than the 48 percent who secured release as of dispositions in 2000 and close to the 56 percent release rate at disposition in 1999. The juveniles

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

secured release on bail (14%) or on recognizance (39%) pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing. Borough differences in release rates for juveniles in the cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were narrower than in previous years. More than half of the juveniles in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens (56%, 55%, and 54%, respectively) were released on recognizance or on bail, and they were almost as likely to secure release in Manhattan (48%). Release on recognizance considered alone increased in both Brooklyn (44%, up from 35%) and Manhattan (41%, up from 36%) and increased sharply in the Bronx (42%, up from only 17%), but decreased almost as sharply in Queens (28%, down from 44%). The rate of bail making as of the disposition appearance in the upper court more than doubled in Queens (from 10% to 26%), perhaps in compensation for the reduced rates of ROR. 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 seven of every ten (69%), down from 79 percent in 2000 and from 72 percent in 1999. However, only 59 percent of cases with juvenile defendants were disposed in JO Parts in 1998 and only 63 percent in 1997. The proportion of juvenile cases that reach disposition in a JO Part varied substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (97%), followed by Brooklyn (91%), compared to only 57 percent in the Bronx and only fifteen percent in Queens. The lower proportions in Queens and the Bronx seem to reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in non-JO Parts. As noted earlier, Queens, followed by the Bronx, makes greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. The overall decrease in the use of the JO Parts reflects the recent changes that occurred in the Bronx, from 81 percent of dispositions in JO Parts for juvenile cases in 2000 to only 57 percent in 2001, and Queens, where the use of the JO Parts decreased from 29 percent in 2000 to only fifteen percent during this reporting period. This decrease in juveniles cases disposed in JO Parts seems to reflect an increase in the use of SCIs in the Bronx and Queens. 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. During this reporting period, as in each report since 1999, conviction rates have been higher for the JO Parts (90%) than for the non-JO Parts (83%). 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. It seems likely, however, that the high conviction rate in non-JO Part in Queens reflects the inclusion of so many SCI cases, cases that imply that the plea is already entered.

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

The median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition are presented in Exhibits 5E and 5F. Citywide, the median number of appearances (7) was the same as in previous reporting periods and the median number of days (88) was more than two weeks shorter than in the previous year. In general, the median number of appearances (17) and days (200) was very high for the small number of cases (8) disposed at the A-felony level. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were similar for cases with B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 82 days) and for cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 87 days). 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 seven 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. The median number of appearances was very stable, changing by only one appearance or less in any borough. 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 91 days in the Bronx, 99 days in Brooklyn, and 132 days in Manhattan. The average number of days was the same in this reporting period as in the previous year in Queens, decreased by a few days in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and decreased by nearly two months in the Bronx. The sharp decrease in the Bronx in 2001 followed a comparable increase the previous year. The citywide numbers are relatively stable from year to year. The juvenile cases took an average of three months to be disposed in upper court in both 1999 and 2001, compared to three and a half months 1998 and 2000. 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. Citywide, cases with juveniles who were released on recognizance (5 appearances, 46 days) or on bail (5 appearances, 71 days) reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were held on bail (9 appearances, 111 days) or who were remanded with no bail set (7 appearances, 134 days). This pattern, however, is not clearly visible in each borough, perhaps because of the small volume of cases in many of the release status categories in the boroughs. 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 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

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

court primarily through indictment, while the cases in the non-JO Parts include most 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 eight (down from nine in 2000), 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 117 (down from 125 in 2000) compared to a median of zero days for similarly-charged 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 (7 appearances, 102 days) reached disposition more quickly than did their counterparts in Manhattan (9 appearances, 135 days) or the Bronx (11 appearances, 175 days).

-57-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 50.9%

Murder 2 2.2%

Att. Murder 2 2.7%

Assault 1 8.8% Robbery 2 20.8%

Other* 14.6%

(N=226)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=75)

Percentage

4.0 4.0

45.3

20.0

6.7

20.0

Murder 2

5.4 2.7

48.6

13.5

5.4

24.3

Manhattan (N=61)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=37)

Att. Murder 2

1.6

49.2

31.1

8.2

9.8

Assault 1

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

Queens (N=53)

Other*

1.9

62.3

15.1

5.7

-58-

100.0%

5 0 1 2

2 18 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

13.5% 0.0% 2.7% 5.4%

21.6%

5.4% 48.6% 5.4% 2.7% 2.7% 5.4% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0%

75.7%

2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

2.7%

19 0 0 1

0 30 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

31.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

32.8%

0.0% 49.2% 8.2% 3.3% 3.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

65.6%

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

1.6%

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx % N % N

8 0 0 0

1 33 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0

100.0%

15.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

15.1%

1.9% 62.3% 15.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%

84.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

5 0 0

226

47 2 2 4

6 115 20 4 8 7 0 3 3 0

100.0%

20.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8%

24.3%

2.7% 50.9% 8.8% 1.8% 3.5% 3.1% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

73.5%

2.2% 0.0% 0.0%

2.2%

CITYWIDE %

166

TOTAL

20.0% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3%

15 2 1 1

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

25.3%

4.0% 45.3% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 5.3% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

70.7%

4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4.0%

3 34 5 0 5 4 0 1 1 0

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2001 JO Supreme Court Disposition

Table 5a

-59-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=75)

Percentage

78.7

21.3

Manhattan (N=61)

98.4

1.6

Queens (N=53)

90.6

9.4

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=37)

86.5

13.5

Disposition Conviction Other*

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=226)

88.1

11.9

-60-

-61-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

Queens %

A FELONIES:

4.0%

2.7%

1.6%

Conviction Other Subtotal

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

70.7%

75.7%

65.6%

Conviction Other Subtotal

44 9

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

24 4

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

40 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25.3%

21.6%

13 6

68.4% 31.6% 100.0%

8 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

59 16

78.7% 21.3% 100.0%

32 5

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

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 5

2.2%

3 2

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

84.9%

166

73.5%

42 3

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

150 16

90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

32.8%

15.1%

24.3%

19 1

95.0% 5.0% 100.0%

6 2

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

46 9

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

100.0%

226

100.0%

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

60 1

98.4% 1.6% 100.0%

48 5

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

199 27

88.1% 11.9% 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=62)

Percentage

43.5

12.9

8.1

35.5

41.9

12.9

3.2

41.9

Manhattan (N=59)

40.7

6.8

11.9

40.7

28.0

26.0

6.0

40.0

Remand

Queens (N=50)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=31)

ROR

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=202)

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

38.6

14.4

7.9

39.1

-62-

-63-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 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 %

4.8%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

74.2%

24 6 4 12

52.2% 13.0% 8.7% 26.1% 100.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1.7%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

77.4%

66.1%

10 4 1 9

41.7% 16.7% 4.2% 37.5% 100.0%

15 3 4 17

38.5% 7.7% 10.3% 43.6% 100.0%

21.0%

22.6%

3 2 1 7

23.1% 15.4% 7.7% 53.8% 100.0%

3 0 0 4

42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 100.0%

100.0%

27 8 5 22

43.5% 12.9% 8.1% 35.5% 100.0%

13 4 1 13

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

2.0%

0 0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

88.0%

153

75.7%

11 10 3 20

25.0% 22.7% 6.8% 45.5% 100.0%

60 23 12 58

39.2% 15.0% 7.8% 37.9% 100.0%

32.2%

12.0%

22.3%

9 1 3 6

47.4% 5.3% 15.8% 31.6% 100.0%

3 3 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 6 4 17

40.0% 13.3% 8.9% 37.8% 100.0%

100.0%

202

100.0%

41.9% 12.9% 3.2% 41.9% 100.0%

24 4 7 24

40.7% 6.8% 11.9% 40.7% 100.0%

14 13 3 20

28.0% 26.0% 6.0% 40.0% 100.0%

78 29 16 79

38.6% 14.4% 7.9% 39.1% 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. * Includes juveniles who are convicted and awaiting sentencing as well as those whose cases are transferred to Family Court. Excludes 18 dismissals as well as 6 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=75)

Percentage

90.7

9.3

Bronx (N=37)

56.8

43.2

Manhattan (N=61)

96.7

3.3

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=53)

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

15.1

84.9

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

Citywide (N=226)

69.0

31.0

-64-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=166)

3.4

(N=5)

0.9

13.6

A Felonies

4.7

83.1

JO Part Non-JO Part

20.0 20.0

94.4

4.5

11.4

81.8

9.1 9.1

(N=55)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

84.1

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

JO Part Non-JO Part

60.0

Percent

Convicted

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

5.1 4.5

12.9

82.9

4.3

(N=226)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

90.4

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 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

4.0%

2.7%

1.6%

2 0 1 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

0 1 0 1

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 5

2.2%

0 0 0

3 1 1 5

60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 0 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

70.7%

75.7%

65.6%

84.9%

166

73.5%

42 1 5 48

87.5% 2.1% 10.4% 100.0%

15 0 0 15

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39 0 0 39

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

101 1 5 107

94.4% 0.9% 4.7% 100.0%

2 2 1 5

40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0%

9 0 4 13

69.2% 0.0% 30.8% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37 0 3 40

92.5% 0.0% 7.5% 100.0%

49 2 8 59

83.1% 3.4% 13.6% 100.0%

25.3%

21.6%

32.8%

15.1%

24.3%

12 4 1 17

70.6% 23.5% 5.9% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 1 19

94.7% 0.0% 5.3% 100.0%

2 1 0 3

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

37 5 2 44

84.1% 11.4% 4.5% 100.0%

1 1 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 1 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

9 1 1 11

81.8% 9.1% 9.1% 100.0%

100.0%

226

100.0%

56 5 7 68

82.4% 7.4% 10.3% 100.0%

20 1 0 21

95.2% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0%

58 0 1 59

98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 100.0%

7 1 0 8

87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

141 7 8 156

90.4% 4.5% 5.1% 100.0%

3 3 1 7

42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0%

12 0 4 16

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

41 0 4 45

91.1% 0.0% 8.9% 100.0%

58 3 9 70

82.9% 4.3% 12.9% 100.0%

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: 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.

B Felonies (N=154)

(N=8)

6.5

Remand

(N=52)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

24.5

Median Number of Days

ROR

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=214)

All Charges

9 7

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 2001 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

23.5

15.0

17.0

0 0 1 2

18.0 17.0

0 0 1 1

31.0 16.0

0 0 0 3

15.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 2 6

24.5 15.0

7.0

11.0

1.0

154

7.0

13 7 29 3

7.0 7.0 10.0 9.0

8 2 7 6

1.0 16.5 13.0 5.5

6 3 11 14

9.5 23.0 15.0 11.0

11 10 8 16

1.0 1.0 11.5 1.0

38 22 55 39

4.0 7.0 11.0 3.0

5.5

11.0

7.0

1.0

7.0

2 4 8 2

13.0 5.0 5.5 8.0

4 2 2 1

7.5 25.5 11.0 7.0

4 2 6 11

8.5 4.0 6.0 7.0

3 1 0 0

1.0 3.0 -

13 9 16 14

7.0 5.0 6.5 7.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

1.0

214

7.0

15 11 38 7

7.0 7.0 8.0 10.0

12 4 10 8

3.0 20.0 12.0 7.0

10 5 17 28

9.0 7.0 8.0 10.0

14 11 8 16

1.0 1.0 11.5 1.0

51 31 73 59

5.0 5.0 9.0 7.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 12 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

150

200

250

300

B Felonies (N=154)

28.5

130

(N=8)

186

90.5

105

Remand

(N=52)

C or D Felonies

111

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

245

Median Number of Days

ROR

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=214)

All Charges

111

134

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 2001 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

188.0

345.0

144.0

200.0

0 0 1 2

212.0 186.0

0 0 1 1

278.0 412.0

0 0 0 3

144.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 2 6

245.0 186.0

100.0

32.0

158.5

0.0

154

82.0

13 7 29 3

104.0 79.0 111.0 80.0

8 2 7 6

0.0 347.5 77.0 82.0

6 3 11 14

95.0 277.0 163.0 175.0

11 10 8 16

216.0 -

38 22 55 39

28.5 64.0 130.0 16.0

94.0

168.0

78.0

0.0

87.0

2 4 8 2

98.5 90.0 91.0 79.5

4 2 2 1

67.0 498.5 184.0 175.0

4 2 6 11

150.5 95.5 69.5 91.0

3 1 0 0

6.0 -

13 9 16 14

70.0 111.0 90.5 105.0

99.0

91.0

131.5

0.0

214

88.5

15 11 38 7

97.0 79.0 100.0 156.0

12 4 10 8

12.5 434.0 154.0 140.0

10 5 17 28

95.0 135.0 97.0 149.0

14 11 8 16

0.0 0.0 216.0 0.0

51 31 73 59

46.0 71.0 111.0 134.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 12 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=166)

(N=5)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=55)

C or D Felonies

6.5

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=226)

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 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

31.0

21.0

3 0

18.0 0.0

1 0

31.0 -

1 0

21.0 -

0 0

5 0

21.0 0.0

7.0

6.0

10.5

1.0

166

7.0

48 5

7.0 1.0

15 13

13.0 1.0

39 1

11.0 9.0

5 40

7.0 1.0

107 59

9.0 1.0

5.0

9.5

5.5

2.0

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

17 2

5.0 2.5

5 3

8.0 11.0

19 1

6.0 -

3 5

3.0 1.0

44 11

6.5 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

9.0

1.0

226

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

68 7

7.0 1.0

21 16

11.0 1.0

59 2

9.0 7.0

8 45

6.5 1.0

156 70

8.0 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

B Felonies (N=166)

(N=5)

136

A Felonies

188

Median Number of Days

(N=55)

C or D Felonies

97.5

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=226)

All Charges

117

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance 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 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

188.0

278.0

138.0

188.0

3 0

188.0 -

1 0

278.0 -

1 0

138.0 -

0 0

5 0

188.0 0.0

101.0

30.5

149.0

0.0

166

79.0

48 5

107.5 63.0

15 13

175.0 0.0

39 1

154.0 84.0

5 40

213.0 0.0

107 59

136.0 0.0

87.0

168.0

94.0

3.0

84.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

17 2

90.0 26.5

5 3

168.0 64.0

19 1

97.0 78.0

3 5

13.0 0.0

44 11

97.5 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

99.0

70.0

128.0

0.0

226

84.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

68 7

102.5 0.0

21 16

175.0 0.0

59 2

135.0 81.0

8 45

111.0 0.0

156 70

117.0 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

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 207 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2001 were for juvenile offenders, fewer than the 216 sentences in 2000 and the 254 sentences in 1999 but more than the 158 sentences in 1998. The decrease in the volume of sentences occurred mainly in Brooklyn (a decrease of 17 sentences), with little change in the Bronx (a decrease of one sentence) and Queens (a decrease of two sentences) while Manhattan showed a substantial increase (from 54 to 65) in the number of cases with juvenile defendants that reached sentencing. The borough composition of the sentences has thereby shifted, with more of the sentences coming from Manhattan (31%), and fewer from Brooklyn (29%) than in previous years. Queens cases account for 22 percent and Bronx cases for 17 percent, as in 2000. Overall, less than half of the sentences for JOs in 2001 were custodial, much lower than in 2000 (62%) but the same in 1999 (48%). This includes either imprisonment only (38%, compared to 53% in 2000 and 39% in 1999) or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;splitâ&#x20AC;? sentence including both imprisonment and probation (11%, compared to 9% in 2000 and 1999). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles received were large. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn (67%) and the Bronx (61%) were more likely to be incarcerative than were sentences in other boroughs. Incarcerative sentences account for just over a third of sentences in Queens (35%) and Manhattan (34%). The citywide decrease in the proportion of incarcerative sentences is reflected in each borough, but the decrease was very small in Brooklyn and nearly as small in the Bronx. In Queens, however, the rate dropped from 56 percent to 35 percent and in Manhattan the rate dropped from 50 percent to 34 percent. In both of these boroughs the decrease is attributable to a decrease in the use of straight imprisonment as the sentence for juveniles. In 2000, half of the sentences for JO cases in Manhattan and Queens were for imprisonment only. In contrast, in 2001, a third of the sentences in Manhattan and less than a fifth of sentences in Queens required straight imprisonment. Probation with no incarceration was most common in Manhattan (66%, up from 50% in 2000) and Queens (66%, up from 42%), compared to only four of every ten sentences in the Bronx (39%, up from 30%) and less than three of every ten sentences in Brooklyn (28%, about the same as in 2000). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of a custodial sanction was higher for the juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (50%) than for those convicted at lesser severity levels (38%). The decrease in custodial sentences in 2001 occurred in both charge severity categories, but the decrease was larger (19 percentage points) for sentences at the C- or D- felony level than for sentences at the B-felony level (12 percentage points). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given to juvenile offenders in 2001 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 more than three times more likely to involve

-76Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

straight imprisonment than were sentences for juveniles convicted in non-JO Parts (46%, compared to 13%). Split sentences were more frequent in the non-JO Parts (19%, compared to 8% in the JO Parts). Taken together, more than half of the sentences for juveniles convicted in a JO Part, compared to a third of the sentences for their counterparts convicted in a non-JO Part, were incarcerative in 2001. Conversely, sentences in non-JO Parts (66%) were more likely to require probation only than were sentences in the JO Parts (46%). These differences primarily reflect differences at the Bfelony level, since so few cases (9) with juveniles convicted at the C- or 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 2001 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 (46%) than among those sentenced in the non-JO Parts (13%), as in previous reports, although the difference is wider than in 2000 (57% versus 36%) or 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 Manhattan and Brooklyn 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 Manhattan and Brooklyn than those of the other boroughs. In 2001, Manhattan alone accounts for 41 percent of the sentences in JO Parts. Together Manhattan and Brooklyn account for more than 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 2001. The use of SCIs seems to have declined in the Bronx since 1998. While Bronx sentences were more likely to take place in JO Parts (69%) than in non-JO Parts (31%) in 2001, they account for less 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 2001 than in 2000 or 1999 and the distribution of cases across court part within borough has not improved. The Bronx, the borough with the lowest volume of sentences for juvenile offender cases in 2001, is the only borough that shows more than ten cases in both JO and non-JO Parts. Queens shows only nine in the JO Part. The volume is very small but the pattern is consistent. In the Bronx, the data show custodial sentences for three quarters of those convicted in the JO Part (18 of 25 sentences), compared to 36 percent of the 25 sentences given in other court parts. In Queens, two thirds of the nine sentences in the JO Part were custodial compared to a quarter of the 37 sentences in non-JO Parts. Details regarding sentences given for specific conviction-charge severity levels, by borough and court part is presented in Table 6b.

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

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 78 percent of sentences during the reporting period, compared to 72 percent in 2000 and 84 percent in 1999. In previous years, there was little difference by court part in the likelihood of receiving YO status. In 2001, however, juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (76%, compared to 85%). 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 seven of every ten of the sentences in the Brooklyn and Manhattan, eight of every ten sentences in the Bronx, and nine 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. Bronx cases account for only a fifth of sentences in JO Parts and only a sixth of sentences in non-JO Parts. Again, borough comparisons by type of court part are limited because of low volume. Queens cases, which, as mentioned above, account for seven of every ten sentences citywide for juveniles in non-JO Parts, are far more likely to be granted YO status in the non-JO Parts (95%) than in the JO Part (78% of 9 sentences). The pattern is reversed in the Bronx where 84 percent of the juveniles sentenced in the JO Part received YO status, compared to only 73 percent of the eleven juveniles sentenced in other court parts. The small volume of cases that reach sentencing in each borough and type of court part limit the generalizability of these findings. Exhibits 6D and 6E give the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 2001 for each of the convictioncharge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2001 appeared a median of 13 times in Supreme Court, and a median of 292 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was two appearances and nearly six weeks shorter. The citywide data show little difference in the time from the first appearance in the upper court 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 conviction. This may reflect the basic similarity of these cases that reach sentencing in the Supreme 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. Also, the release status set at conviction may not be the release status set for the juvenile for all of the appearances prior to sentencing. Many juveniles are released to the supervision of community programs at an appearance subsequent to conviction, and that release is not reflected in the release status data in this report.

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

The borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (3 appearances, 55 days) than did the defendants in other boroughs. It took a median of 13 appearances in the Bronx (238 days), 13.5 appearances in Brooklyn (275 days) and 19 appearances (458 days) in Manhattan. The sequence of the boroughs in speed of case processing is similar to the pattern shown in previous reporting periods. However, the changes in length of case were not distributed equally across the boroughs. Cases in Queens required half as many appearances and one week less in 2001 than in 2000. Cases in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan took two to five additional appearances to reach sentencing in 2001 than in 2000. In the Bronx, the two additional appearances were associated with a median length of case ten days shorter than in the previous year. The additional appearances in Brooklyn took a median of nearly two months longer, and the five additional appearances in Manhattan took a median of more than three months longer. 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 (16 appearances and 357 days) than for those sentenced in other parts (4 appearances and 62 days). This is consistent with the findings reported for previous periods. It is evident even within charge severity. For example, for those sentenced for B felonies, it took 17 appearances and 371 days in the JO Parts and three appearances and 52 days in the non-JO Parts. It took a median of five more appearances to sentence for juveniles convicted of B felonies in 2001 than in 2000, and an increase of a median of more than three months. The median number of appearances and days in JO Parts was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level than for those convicted at the C- or D-felony level (14 appearances and 310 days) but 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. 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. The data presented earlier on the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court 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 twice as long as the citywide average, taking two weeks longer in Queens than the citywide average. For juveniles who secured release on recognizance, it also took twice as long to reach disposition in Criminal Court in Queens compared to the citywide figures. For the juveniles who were held on bail, the median number of days in Queens is five times

-79Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

longer, requiring fully three weeks more, than in other boroughs. 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 non-JO Parts where the SCI cases appear, may reflect the use of SCIs. However, even in the JO Part, Queens cases reach sentencing much faster than do the cases in other boroughs. It is also possible that differences across the boroughs in the use of ATI (alternative-to-incarceration) programs might account to some extent for differences in length of case, since participation in such programs seems likely to extend the number of days and number of appearances prior to sentencing. Perhaps juvenile offenders in Queens are less likely to participate in ATI programs. It is beyond the scope of this report to do more than speculate about the reasons for the observed differences. The explanation 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 it may be borough- or court-specific.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=60)

Percentage

51.7

15.0

28.3

5.0

Bronx (N=36)

Imprisonment

50.0

11.1

38.9

Manhattan (N=65)

32.3

1.5

66.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=46)

Probation

2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

17.4

65.2

Other

Citywide (N=207)

37.7

10.6

50.2

1.4

-80-

-81-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 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 % 0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

3.3%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

76.7%

77.8%

75.4%

23 9 12 2

50.0% 19.6% 26.1% 4.3% 100.0%

15 4 9 0

53.6% 14.3% 32.1% 0.0% 100.0%

16 1 32 0

32.7% 2.0% 65.3% 0.0% 100.0%

20.0%

22.2%

6 0 5 1

50.0% 0.0% 41.7% 8.3% 91.7%

3 0 5 0

37.5% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

31 9 17 3

51.7% 15.0% 28.3% 5.0% 100.0%

18 4 14 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 2

1.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

91.3%

165

79.7%

8 7 27 0

19.0% 16.7% 64.3% 0.0% 100.0%

62 21 80 2

37.6% 12.7% 48.5% 1.2% 100.0%

24.6%

8.7%

19.3%

5 0 11 0

31.3% 0.0% 68.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 0

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1 24 1

35.0% 2.5% 60.0% 2.5% 97.5%

100.0%

207

100.0%

50.0% 11.1% 38.9% 0.0% 100.0%

21 1 43 0

32.3% 1.5% 66.2% 0.0% 100.0%

8 8 30 0

17.4% 17.4% 65.2% 0.0% 100.0%

78 22 104 3

37.7% 10.6% 50.2% 1.4% 100.0%

0 0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1.7

13.6

20.5

(N=165)

(N=2)

JO Part Non-JO Part

9.9

43.0

B Felonies

Non-JO Part

45.5

65.9

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Imprisonment

58.1

11.1 11.1

66.7

Probation

11.1

(N=40)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

41.9

Sentence Imp. and Probation

2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Other

7.8

45.5

1.3

18.9

1.9

Non-JO Part

13.2

66.0

(N=207)

All Felonies

JO Part

45.5

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

-82-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=3)

(N=57)

33.3

JO Part

Brooklyn

52.6

15.8

28.1

3.5

Percentage

(N=25)

JO Part

27.3

9.1

63.6

(N=11)

Non JO Part

Bronx

60.0

12.0

28.0

Imprisonment

50.0

(N=63)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

30.2

69.8

50.0

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=9)

JO Part

(N=37)

Non JO Part

5.4

21.6

73.0

Other

Queens

66.7

33.3

Probation

2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

13.2

18.9

66.0

1.9

(N=154) (N=53)

JO Part

Citywide

45.5

7.8

45.5

1.3

-83-

-84Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3.3%

0.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

1.0%

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 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 46

76.7%

77.8%

75.4%

91.3%

165

79.7%

22 9 11 2 44

50.0% 20.5% 25.0% 4.5% 100.0%

13 3 6 0 22

59.1% 13.6% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 33 0 47

29.8% 0.0% 70.2% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 2 0 8

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

55 12 52 2 121

45.5% 9.9% 43.0% 1.7% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1 3 0 6

33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 7 25 0 34

5.9% 20.6% 73.5% 0.0% 100.0%

6 9 29 0 44

13.6% 20.5% 65.9% 0.0% 100.0%

20.0%

22.2%

24.6%

8.7%

19.3%

6 0 5 0 11

54.5% 0.0% 45.5% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 11 0 16

31.3% 0.0% 68.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 18 0 31

41.9% 0.0% 58.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 4 0 5

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 1 2 0 3

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 6 1 9

11.1% 11.1% 66.7% 11.1% 100.0%

100.0%

207

100.0%

30 9 16 2 57

52.6% 15.8% 28.1% 3.5% 100.0%

15 3 7 0 25

60.0% 12.0% 28.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 44 0 63

30.2% 0.0% 69.8% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 3 0 9

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

70 12 70 2 154

45.5% 7.8% 45.5% 1.3% 100.0%

1 0 1 1 3

33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

3 1 7 0 11

27.3% 9.1% 63.6% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 8 27 0 37

5.4% 21.6% 73.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 10 35 1 53

13.2% 18.9% 66.0% 1.9% 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: JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(N=165)

22.6

33.3

Non-JO Part

66.7

(N=40)

C or D Felonies

JO Part

77.4

Not Youthful Offender

Non-JO Part

11.4

B Felonies

JO Part

23.1

(N=2)

Non-JO Part

76.9

88.6

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Youthful Offender

2001 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

24.0

Non-JO Part

15.1

(N=207)

All Charges

JO Part

76.0

84.9

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=3)

(N=57)

33.3

66.7

JO Part

Brooklyn

73.7

26.3

Percentage

(N=25)

JO Part

72.7

27.3

(N=11)

Non JO Part

Bronx

84.0

16.0

50.0

(N=63)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

74.6

25.4

Non JO Part

94.6

5.4

(N=9) (N=37)

JO Part

Queens

77.8

22.2

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

76.0

24.0

Non JO Part

84.9

15.1

(N=154) (N=53)

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 2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3.3%

0.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

1.0%

0 0

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

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

0 0 46

76.7%

77.8%

75.4%

91.3%

165

79.7%

33 11 44

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

19 3 22

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

35 12 47

74.5% 25.5% 100.0%

6 2 8

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

93 28 121

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

5 1 6

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

32 2 34

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

39 5 44

88.6% 11.4% 100.0%

20.0%

22.2%

24.6%

8.7%

19.3%

9 2 11

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

12 4 16

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

24 7 31

77.4% 22.6% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 2 5

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 0

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 3 9

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

100.0%

207

100.0%

42 15 57

73.7% 26.3% 100.0%

21 4 25

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

47 16 63

74.6% 25.4% 100.0%

7 2 9

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

117 37 154

76.0% 24.0% 100.0%

1 2 3

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

8 3 11

72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

35 2 37

94.6% 5.4% 100.0%

45 8 53

84.9% 15.1% 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: JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

14.5

(N=39)

13.5

C or D Felonies

(N=164)

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

14.5

Remand

(N=205)

All Charges

16 15

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

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2001 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 2001 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

15.5

0 0 0 2

15.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

15.5

14.5

16.0

19.0

3.0

164

14.5

23 8 2 13

16.0 12.0 19.0 13.0

8 6 1 13

10.5 18.0 11.0 17.0

18 6 3 21

24.0 17.0 13.0 18.0

15 9 0 18

3.0 3.0 6.5

64 29 6 65

14.5 12.0 16.0 16.0

10.0

12.0

17.5

5.0

12.0

0 5 1 6

8.0 6.0 13.0

3 1 0 3

6.0 12.0 12.0

9 3 1 3

16.0 11.0 21.0 31.0

2 2 0 0

4.0 7.0 -

14 11 2 12

14.0 9.0 13.5 13.0

13.5

13.0

19.0

3.0

205

13.0

23 13 3 21

16.0 12.0 19.0 13.0

11 7 1 16

9.0 15.0 11.0 16.0

27 9 4 24

22.0 17.0 17.0 18.5

17 11 0 18

3.0 3.0 6.5

78 40 8 79

14.5 11.0 16.0 15.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 2 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

307

(N=39)

206.5

C or D Felonies

197

(N=164)

255.5

333

360.5

420

B Felonies

317

Median Number of Days

311.5

Remand

255.5

(N=205)

All Charges

283.5

287

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

100

200

300

400

500

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2001 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 2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

237.0

0 0 0 2

237.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

237.0

300.0

311.5

469.5

54.5

164

308.0

23 8 2 13

363.0 275.0 271.0 243.0

8 6 1 13

137.0 483.0 57.0 336.0

18 6 3 21

591.5 461.0 287.0 455.0

15 9 0 18

54.0 49.0 79.0

64 29 6 65

307.0 317.0 255.5 333.0

184.5

203.0

422.0

94.0

226.0

0 5 1 6

197.0 101.0 165.5

3 1 0 3

120.0 320.0 203.0

9 3 1 3

427.0 310.0 739.0 567.0

2 2 0 0

91.5 94.0 -

14 11 2 12

360.5 197.0 420.0 206.5

275.0

238.0

458.0

55.0

205

292.0

23 13 3 21

363.0 211.0 224.0 223.0

11 7 1 16

136.0 413.0 57.0 287.0

27 9 4 24

514.0 417.0 511.0 458.0

17 11 0 18

54.0 51.0 79.0

78 40 8 79

311.5 283.5 255.5 287.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 2 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

C or D Felonies (N=40)

(N=165)

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=207)

All Charges

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

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2001 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 2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

15.5

2 0

15.5 -

0 0

2 0

15.5 -

14.5

16.0

19.0

3.0

165

15.0

44 2

14.5 17.5

22 6

17.0 8.0

47 2

19.0 24.0

8 34

10.5 3.0

121 44

17.0 3.0

10.0

12.0

17.5

5.0

12.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

11 1

12.0 5.0

3 5

12.0 12.0

16 0

17.5 -

1 3

5.0 5.0

31 9

14.0 6.0

ALL CHARGES:

13.5

19.0

3.0

207

13.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

57 3

14.0 9.0

25 11

17.0 9.0

63 2

19.0 24.0

9 37

10.0 3.0

154 53

16.0 4.0

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=40)

120

(N=165)

52.5

310

B Felonies

371

Median Number of Days

(N=207)

All Charges

357

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

100

200

300

400

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2001 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 2001 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

237.0

2 0

237.0 -

0 0

2 0

237.0 -

300.0

311.5

478.0

54.5

165

308.0

44 2

292.0 348.0

22 6

359.0 122.5

47 2

478.0 459.0

8 34

253.5 50.0

121 44

371.0 52.5

184.5

214.5

422.0

94.0

232.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

11 1

190.0 70.0

3 5

203.0 226.0

16 0

422.0 -

1 3

70.0 118.0

31 9

310.0 120.0

ALL CHARGES:

275.0

239.5

461.0

55.0

207

294.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

57 3

270.0 333.0

25 11

336.0 124.0

63 2

461.0 459.0

9 37

246.0 51.0

154 53

357.0 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, 2001 (Second half of FY 2001 through First half of FY 2002; January - December, 2001)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 153 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, a decrease of 25 percent from the previous reporting period, which followed a 33 percent decrease. As shown in Exhibit 7A, six percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2001, far more than in the previous reporting period (1%). The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2001 for juveniles arraigned in 2001 and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2001. The failure-to-appear data presented in this report is restricted to appearances for juveniles who secure release at arraignment in Criminal Court, or, as discussed below, to appearances in Supreme Court for juveniles who were released as of the first appearance in the upper court. Many juveniles are released subsequent to arraignment while their cases are pending in Criminal Court and, similarly, many juveniles are released after the initial appearance in Supreme Court while their cases are pending in the upper court. Table 7a presents the failure-to-appear (FTA) rate17 by arraignment release status by borough for cases arraigned in Criminal Court. Most of the juveniles released at arraignment who failed to appear during the reporting period had secured release on recognizance at arraignment in Criminal Court in Manhattan, an FTA rate of 26 percent in that borough. This is the highest FTA rate obtained during any previous period in this reporting series. None of the juveniles released on bail at arraignment failed to appear, as in 2000, but this finding should be viewed cautiously since so few defendants (13) 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 (12%)18 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it has been in previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (14%, compared to 7% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (10%, 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 lower than the rate reported for 2000 (13%), 1999 (13%), and 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. 18

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: 2001 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 93.5% Yes 6.5%

(N=153)

0 6

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

2 203

205

0 0

0 133

1.0% 99.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.9%

3.0% 97.0% 100.0%

32.2%

0 102

102

0 5

0 61

0 5

0 31

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

59.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30.4%

11 91

102

0 4

3 63

0 1

8 23

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.9%

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

64.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.0%

25.8% 74.2% 100.0%

30.4%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

0 89

0 2

0 74

0 1

0 12

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

83.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13.5%

Queens %

13 485

498

0 11

3 331

334

0 13

10 130

140

2.6% 97.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2%

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

67.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.6%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

28.1%

CITYWIDE N %

* The total excludes 8 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

133

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

2 64

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 2001 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: 2001 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 12.3%

No 87.7%

(N=81)

2 8

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

11 56

1 3

0 8

6 28

16.4% 83.6% 100.0%

100.0%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

6.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.9%

17.6% 82.4% 100.0%

50.7%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

14.9%

18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

16.4%

5 34

0 4

0 8

2 8

0 3

3 11

12.8% 87.2% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20.5%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

25.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.7%

21.4% 78.6% 100.0%

35.9%

7 43

0 2

2 18

3 11

1 2

1 10

14.0% 86.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.0%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

40.0%

21.4% 78.6% 100.0%

28.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

6.0%

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

22.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 57

1 3 4

0 17

1 9

0 15

1 13

5.0% 95.0% 100.0%

100.0%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

6.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

28.3%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

16.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25.0%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

23.3%

Queens %

26 190

216

2 12

2 51

12 56

3 28

7 43

12.0% 88.0% 100.0%

100.0%

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

6.5%

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

24.5%

17.6% 82.4% 100.0%

31.5%

9.7% 90.3% 100.0%

14.4%

14.0% 86.0% 100.0%

23.1%

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:

2 9

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 2001 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

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

* 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.