Juveniles Report 02 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 2002

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2003

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 2002

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

Dale Sealy Programmer/Analyst

Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Assistant

November 2003

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

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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

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............................................................................................................................

31 34 35 36 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 ....................................................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ 41 Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 42 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..........................................................................

43 46 47 48 49

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............................................................................................................................

55 59 60 61 62 63 64

50 51 52

65 66 67 68

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 .............

72 73 74 75 76 77 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

90 91

92 93 94

Exhibit 6G: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.................. 95 Table 6g: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............................ 96 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................................................................

97 98 99 100 101

APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES........................................................................ 102

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: 2002 JO Arrests

Other* 13.9%

Murder 2 0.3%

Burglary 1 0.3% Burglary 2 7.8%

Robbery 1 22.0%

Assault 1 4.0% Att. Murder 2 0.4%

Robbery 2 51.3%

(N=1,556)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=613)

Percentage

Manhattan (N=261)

0.4

26.1

54.0

5.4

14.2

0.3

17.7

62.5

1.8

17.7

Assault 1

Queens (N=328)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.5

Bronx (N=317)

22.4

36.9

6.9

32.5

Att. Murder 2

23.0

51.5

3.3

21.4

Murder 2

2002 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Staten Is. (N=37)

Other*

13.5

54.1

32.4

-10-

613

100.0%

317

117 25 8 29

179

2 71 22 0 19 14 1 0 4 0

133

2 0 3

100.0%

36.9% 7.9% 2.5% 9.1%

56.5%

0.6% 22.4% 6.9% 0.0% 6.0% 4.4% 0.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%

42.0%

0.6% 0.0% 0.9%

1.6%

Bronx N %

261

141 7 9 16

173

1 68 14 0 1 3 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

54.0% 2.7% 3.4% 6.1%

66.3%

0.4% 26.1% 5.4% 0.0% 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

33.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0 0 0

328

205 34 3 8

250

1 58 6 0 2 5 0 3 3 0

100.0%

62.5% 10.4% 0.9% 2.4%

76.2%

0.3% 17.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

23.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

20 4 2 3

0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

0 0 0

6 343 62 0 36 29 1 5 14 0

496

5 0 3

799 121 43 89

100.0% 1556

54.1% 10.8% 5.4% 8.1%

100.0%

51.3% 7.8% 2.8% 5.7%

67.6%

0.4% 22.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0%

31.9%

0.3% 0.0% 0.2%

0.5%

CITYWIDE N %

78.4% 1052

0.0% 13.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 2.7% 0.0%

21.6%

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

316 51 21 33

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

51.5% 8.3% 3.4% 5.4%

68.7%

421

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

30.8%

189 0.3% 23.0% 3.3% 0.0% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

2 141 20 0 14 7 0 0 5 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 2002 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=613)

Percentage

0.2

39.6

60.2

Bronx (N=317)

39.7

60.3

Manhattan (N=261)

39.1

60.9

Queens (N=328)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2002 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

38.4

61.6

Staten Is. (N=37)

29.7

70.3

Citywide (N=1556)

0.1

39.1

60.9

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 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 % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.5%

1.6%

0.5%

1 0 2

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

0 2 3

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

1 2 5

12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 100.0%

189

30.8%

133

42.0%

33.7%

23.8%

0 72 117

0.0% 38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

0 46 87

0.0% 34.6% 65.4% 100.0%

0 35 53

0.0% 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%

0 24 54

0.0% 30.8% 69.2% 100.0%

0 2 6

21.6%

496

31.9%

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 179 317

0.0% 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

421

68.7%

179

56.5%

173

66.3%

250

76.2%

78.4%

1052

67.6%

0 171 250

0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 100.0%

0 78 101

0.0% 43.6% 56.4% 100.0%

0 67 106

0.0% 38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

0 102 148

0.0% 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%

0 9 20

0.0% 31.0% 69.0% 100.0%

0 427 625

0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 100.0%

613

100.0%

317

100.0%

261

100.0%

328

100.0%

1556

100.0%

1 243 369

0.2% 39.6% 60.2% 100.0%

0 126 191

0.0% 39.7% 60.3% 100.0%

0 102 159

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0 126 202

0.0% 38.4% 61.6% 100.0%

0 11 26

0.0% 29.7% 70.3% 100.0%

1 608 947

0.1% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0 0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=612)

Percentage

89.9

10.1

Bronx (N=317)

91.8

8.2

Manhattan (N=260)

90.0

10.0

Queens (N=328)

Gender Males Females

2002 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

90.5

9.5

Staten Is. (N=37)

94.6

5.4

Citywide (N=1554)

90.5

9.5

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 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 % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE %

0.5%

1.6%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

5 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

189

30.9%

133

42.0%

33.8%

23.8%

179 10

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

127 6

95.5% 4.5% 100.0%

85 3

96.6% 3.4% 100.0%

75 3

96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

7 1

420

68.6%

179

56.5%

172

66.2%

250

76.2%

369 51

87.9% 12.1% 100.0%

159 20

88.8% 11.2% 100.0%

149 23

86.6% 13.4% 100.0%

222 28

88.8% 11.2% 100.0%

28 1

96.6% 3.4% 100.0%

927 123

88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

612

100.0%

317

100.0%

260

100.0%

328

100.0%

100.0% 1554

100.0%

550 62

89.9% 10.1% 100.0%

291 26

91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

234 26

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

297 31

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

35 2

94.6% 1407 5.4% 147 100.0%

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

0 0

0.5%

7 1

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

21.6%

496

31.9%

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

473 23

95.4% 4.6% 100.0%

78.4% 1050

67.6%

0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=613)

Percentage

66.9

33.1

Bronx (N=317)

60.3

39.7

Manhattan (N=261)

59.0

41.0

Queens (N=328)

77.1

22.9

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2002 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=37)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

70.3

29.7

Citywide (N=1556)

66.5

33.5

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

1.6%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

1 4

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0 0

189

30.8%

133

42.0%

33.7%

23.8%

53 136

28.0% 72.0% 100.0%

45 88

33.8% 66.2% 100.0%

17 71

19.3% 80.7% 100.0%

30 48

38.5% 61.5% 100.0%

3 5

421

68.7%

179

56.5%

173

66.3%

250

76.2%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

356 65

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

145 34

81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

137 36

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

223 27

89.2% 10.8% 100.0%

23 6

79.3% 20.7% 100.0%

884 168

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

613

100.0%

317

100.0%

261

100.0%

328

100.0%

100.0% 1556

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

410 203

66.9% 33.1% 100.0%

191 126

60.3% 39.7% 100.0%

154 107

59.0% 41.0% 100.0%

253 75

77.1% 22.9% 100.0%

26 11

70.3% 1034 29.7% 522 100.0%

66.5% 33.5% 100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0.5%

B FELONIES:

Staten Island N %

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

0.0%

0.5%

2 6

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

21.6%

496

31.9%

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

148 348

29.8% 70.2% 100.0%

78.4% 1052

67.6%

0 0

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 52611 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, slightly more than in 2001 (506) but fewer than in 2000 (571). The volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants was substantially higher in the reporting periods prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The small citywide increase in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The increase was large in the Bronx (26%), but small in Brooklyn (2%) and Manhattan (4%), and the volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants decreased substantially in Queens (16%). Brooklyn arraignments continue to account for about four of every ten juveniles arraigned in adult court, and Manhattan continues to account for about two of every ten. However, Bronx cases account for a quarter of the arraigned juveniles in the current reporting period (compared to 20% in 2001) and Queens cases account for only 14 percent (compared to 18% in 2001). Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that half of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (50%), and another three of every ten were for second degree robbery (31%). Thus, 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 2001. In addition, the combined proportion of robbery charges is roughly comparable to the 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, three of every ten cases for juveniles charged with a B felony at arrest were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to 84 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 has varied widely across the boroughs in previous reporting periods but shows little variation in 2002. First degree robbery charges account for 47 percent of arraignments in Queens, 48 percent in Brooklyn, 51 percent in Manhattan and 55 percent in the Bronx. In 2001, first degree robbery charges accounted for comparable proportions of arraignments in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx, but accounted for a much higher proportion of arraignments in Queens: two thirds 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, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

of the Queens arraignments in 2001 were charged with first degree robbery, compared to only 47 percent in 2002. This change is even more apparent when examined in terms of volume rather than proportions because the volume of arraigned cases with juvenile defendants has declined so sharply in Queens. There were 60 arraignments in Queens that involved a juvenile charged with robbery 1 in 2001, compared to only 36 in 2002. 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. The proportion of Queens arraignments with a second degree robbery charge increased to 38 percent in 2002, from only 22 percent in 2001. The Bronx, the borough with the highest concentration of arraignments in the first degree robbery category (55%) in 2002, showed the lowest concentration in second degree robbery (21%). Together, first and second degree robbery account for nearly nine of every ten JO arraignments in Manhattan (88%) and Queens (86%), and nearly eight of every ten in Brooklyn (79%), and 75 percent of the Bronx arraignments. First degree rape, which accounts for six percent of the arraigned cases in Brooklyn and seven percent in the Bronx but only one percent in Manhattan or Queens, is the only offense besides the robbery charges that accounts for more than five percent of the arraignments with juvenile defendants in any borough. 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 (3) at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 31 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide. The rate of ROR is higher than the rate in 2001 (28%), which was the lowest in this reporting series, but it is comparable to the rate for 2000 (32%). The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally evident in each of the boroughs. The ROR rates for juveniles at arraignments in 2002 increased at about the citywide rate in Brooklyn (from 32% to 36%), and increased a bit more in the Bronx (from 30% to 36%). The ROR rate in Queens was virtually the same in 2002 as in 2001, the lowest rate by far across the boroughs (13%). The ROR rate in Manhattan declined slightly (from 30% in 2001 to 27% in 2002). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail increased sharply in 2002, reaching nearly seven percent citywide, and ranging from four percent (4 juveniles) in Manhattan and five percent in Queens (4 juveniles) to six percent in the Bronx (seven juveniles) and nearly ten percent in Brooklyn (20 juveniles). The juveniles arraigned in Queens showed higher rates of detention at arraignment (82%) than did those arraigned in other boroughs (69% in Manhattan, 58% in the Bronx and 55% in Brooklyn). 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 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, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

be detained. Citywide, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, is 29 percent, 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 2002, the proportion released on ROR was highest in the Bronx (35%), followed by Brooklyn (32%), lower in Manhattan (23%), and far lower in Queens (13%). The borough differences are even wider at the C- and D-felony level. The juveniles were released on ROR in 44 percent of the cases filed with C- or D-felony charges in Brooklyn and 39 percent in the Bronx compared to 33 percent in Manhattan, but only 13 percent of those in Queens. Close examination of the ROR rates by charge severity within borough shows that the severity of the charge makes no difference to a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s likelihood of release on recognizance in Queens, and little in the Bronx, but makes a large difference in Manhattan (10 percentage points) and Brooklyn (12 percentage points). Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there have been large differences in previous reporting periods: In 2001, 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). In 2002, however, the proportion of females released on ROR was lower (25%) than the proportion of males (31%). This finding seems to highlight the decrease in the volume of arraignments with female juvenile defendants. Citywide, in 2002, only 28 arraignments involved female juvenile defendants, compared to 59 in 2001, 55 in 2000, 113 in 1999 and 126 in 1998. The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there have been too few female juveniles arraigned in adult court 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 2002, 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bench Warrant

-21Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

Attached to NYSID,” “No NYSID Available,” “Murder Charge” (125.25 or 110-125.25) or “Interview Incomplete,” but only the murder charge exclusion was exercised in any of the four largest boroughs in 2002. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then 94 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2002 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2002 were far more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. One third of the juveniles in the positive recommendation category, compared to less than one of every five 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 2002, only 27 juveniles were not recommended on this basis, compared to 19 juveniles in 2001 and 26 juveniles in 2000.

-22-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2002 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 50.2%

Murder 2 0.6%

Att. Murder 2 2.5%

Other* 12.5% Assault 1 3.6%

Robbery 2 30.6%

(N=526)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=210)

Percentage

3.3 0.5

48.1

30.5

4.3

13.3

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=110) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

2.3 0.8

54.6

20.8

3.1

18.5

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=130)

Att. Murder 2

2002 JO Arraignments

0.9 0.9

50.9

37.3

3.6

6.4

Assault 1

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=76)

Other*

9.2

2.6

47.4

38.2

2.6

-23-

210

100.0%

27 0 3 4

3 71 4 0 9 3 0 0 4 0

1 0 1

130

100.0%

20.8% 0.0% 2.3% 3.1%

26.2%

2.3% 54.6% 3.1% 0.0% 6.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

72.3%

0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

1.5%

110

41 1 2 0

1 56 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

37.3% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0%

40.0%

0.9% 50.9% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

59.1%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.9%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

29 1 1 0

2 36 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0

0 0 0

100.0%

38.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

40.8%

2.6% 47.4% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 3.9% 0.0%

59.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

3 0 1

526

161 3 8 10

182

13 264 19 0 23 6 0 2 13 0

100.0%

30.6% 0.6% 1.5% 1.9%

34.6%

2.5% 50.2% 3.6% 0.0% 4.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 2.5% 0.0%

64.6%

0.6% 0.0% 0.2%

0.8%

CITYWIDE %

340

TOTAL

64 1 2 6

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

30.5% 0.5% 1.0% 2.9%

34.8%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

64.8%

136 3.3% 48.1% 4.3% 0.0% 5.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

7 101 9 0 12 2 0 0 5 0

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 2002 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-24-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=210)

Percentage

35.7

9.5

53.3

1.4

ROR

Bronx (N=126)

36.5

5.6

53.2

4.8

Manhattan (N=106)

27.4

3.8

67.0

1.9

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2002 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=76)

13.2

5.3

80.3

1.3

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

Citywide (N=518)

30.9

6.8

60.0

2.3

-25-

-26-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Arraignments

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

Queens %

0.5%

1.6%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

136

64.8%

72.2%

60.4%

43 15 75 3

31.6% 11.0% 55.1% 2.2% 100.0%

32 5 49 5

35.2% 5.5% 53.8% 5.5% 100.0%

15 1 47 1

23.4% 1.6% 73.4% 1.6% 100.0%

34.8%

26.2%

32 5 36 0

43.8% 6.8% 49.3% 0.0% 100.0%

13 2 18 0

39.4% 6.1% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

210

100.0%

126

75 20 112 3

35.7% 9.5% 53.3% 1.4% 100.0%

46 7 67 6

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.6%

1 0 1 1

33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

59.2%

336

64.9%

6 2 36 1

13.3% 4.4% 80.0% 2.2% 100.0%

96 23 207 10

28.6% 6.8% 61.6% 3.0% 100.0%

39.6%

40.8%

179

34.6%

14 3 24 1

33.3% 7.1% 57.1% 2.4% 100.0%

4 2 25 0

12.9% 6.5% 80.6% 0.0% 100.0%

63 12 103 1

35.2% 6.7% 57.5% 0.6% 100.0%

100.0%

106

100.0%

518

100.0%

36.5% 5.6% 53.2% 4.8% 100.0%

29 4 71 2

27.4% 3.8% 67.0% 1.9% 100.0%

10 4 61 1

13.2% 5.3% 80.3% 1.3% 100.0%

160 35 311 12

30.9% 6.8% 60.0% 2.3% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals and 4 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Not Made 59.5%

Bail Set/Made 6.9%

Females (N=28)

Males

Bail Set/Not Made 71.4%

ROR 25.0%

(N=490)

Remand 2.4%

ROR 31.2%

2002 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Made 3.6%

-27-

75 20 112 3

210

5 1 7 0

70 19 105 3

197

35.7% 9.5% 53.3% 1.4% 100.0%

100.0%

38.5% 7.7% 53.8% 0.0% 100.0%

6.2%

35.5% 9.6% 53.3% 1.5% 100.0%

93.8%

Brooklyn N %

46 7 67 6

126

0 0 5 0

46 7 62 6

121

36.5% 5.6% 53.2% 4.8% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4.0%

38.0% 5.8% 51.2% 5.0% 100.0%

96.0%

29 4 71 2

106

0 0 5 0

29 4 66 2

101

27.4% 3.8% 67.0% 1.9% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4.7%

28.7% 4.0% 65.3% 2.0% 100.0%

95.3%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % N

10 4 61 1

2 0 3 0

8 4 58 1

13.2% 5.3% 80.3% 1.3% 100.0%

100.0%

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6.6%

11.3% 5.6% 81.7% 1.4% 100.0%

93.4%

Queens %

160 35 311 12

518

* Excludes 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals, 3 transfers to Family Court and 1 for which arraignment release status was not available

7 1 20 0

153 34 291 12

490

30.9% 6.8% 60.0% 2.3% 100.0%

100.0%

25.0% 3.6% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

5.4%

31.2% 6.9% 59.4% 2.4% 100.0%

94.6%

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 2002 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-28-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=210)

Percentage

76.7

0.5 4.3

18.6

Bronx (N=126)

77.0

1.6 7.9

13.5

Manhattan (N=106)

67.9

4.7

27.4

Queens (N=76)

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

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2002 JO Arraignments

85.5

3.9

10.5

Citywide (N=518)

76.3

0.6 5.2

18.0

-28-

-30-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2002 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

161

76.7%

77.0%

67.9%

85.5%

395

76.3%

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

58 18 85 0

36.0% 11.2% 52.8% 0.0% 100.0%

39 7 48 3

40.2% 7.2% 49.5% 3.1% 100.0%

22 3 47 0

30.6% 4.2% 65.3% 0.0% 100.0%

9 4 51 1

13.8% 6.2% 78.5% 1.5% 100.0%

128 32 231 4

32.4% 8.1% 58.5% 1.0% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

4.3%

7.9%

4.7%

3.9%

5.2%

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

2 0 7 0

22.2% 0.0% 77.8% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 7 0

30.0% 0.0% 70.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 2

0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 20 2

18.5% 0.0% 74.1% 7.4% 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 0 0 0

0.5%

1.6%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

18.6%

13.5%

27.4%

10.5%

18.0%

15 2 19 3

38.5% 5.1% 48.7% 7.7% 100.0%

4 0 12 1

23.5% 0.0% 70.6% 5.9% 100.0%

7 1 21 0

24.1% 3.4% 72.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 7 0

12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%

27 3 59 4

29.0% 3.2% 63.4% 4.3% 100.0%

210

100.0%

126

100.0%

106

100.0%

518

100.0%

75 20 112 3

35.7% 9.5% 53.3% 1.4% 100.0%

46 7 67 6

36.5% 5.6% 53.2% 4.8% 100.0%

29 4 71 2

27.4% 3.8% 67.0% 1.9% 100.0%

10 4 61 1

13.2% 5.3% 80.3% 1.3% 100.0%

160 35 311 12

30.9% 6.8% 60.0% 2.3% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 8 arraignments: 4 dismissals, 3 transfers to Family Court and 1 for which arraignment release status was not available

0.6%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002 (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 521 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, slightly more than the 494 dockets disposed in 2001 but still fewer than the 587 dockets disposed in 2000 or 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 eight of every ten are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 37 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, lower than the rate in previous years, which ranged from 40 percent in 2000 to 48 percent in 1998. Again, there are borough differences, with Queens (60%), followed by Manhattan (50%), showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 42% in the Bronx and 21% in Brooklyn). Borough differences are also evident in the change in the proportion of disposed dockets sent to the upper court. The decrease in the size of the transfer rate was larger in Queens (from 74% in 2001 to 60% in 2002) and Brooklyn (from 30% in 2001 to 21% in 2002) and smaller in Manhattan (from 54% to 50%). In contrast, the rate of transfer to the upper court increased in the Bronx from 35 percent in 2001 up to 42 percent in 2002. Further, more than three of every ten of the JO cases citywide that were disposed in Criminal Court were dismissed, although this did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. The dismissal rate (31%) is slightly higher in 2002 than it was in 2001 (28%), but here, again, the citywide figure masks tremendous changes in the dismissal rates within the boroughs. The difference was largest in the Bronx, where barely a third of the cases disposed in the lower court that borough in 2002 were dismissed, compared to half of those cases in 2001, a decrease of 17 percentage points. The change was in the opposite direction in Brooklyn and Queens where the dismissal rates increased by eleven percentage points (from 18% to 29% in Brooklyn and from 8% to 19% in Queens. The proportion of disposed cases dismissed in Criminal Court in Manhattan showed only trivial change from 2001 (40%) to 2002 (39%). The enormous range across the boroughs here may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals14 and may also suggest that there have been changes in those policies. Manhattan also showed the lowest rate of transfer to Family Court (11%, up from 6%) while the transfer rates were higher in Queens (21%, compared to 19% in 2001) the Bronx (26%, up from 16%) and much higher in Brooklyn (50%, down slightly from 52%). Citywide, three of every ten JO cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the 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.

-32Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002 (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

reporting period were transferred to Family Court, similar to the proportions in previous reporting periods. In previous reports, the severity of the charge was strongly related to the likelihood that a case would be prosecuted in the 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, but the difference is small in 2002 and is not evident in each borough. In 2002, 38 percent of B-felony dockets, but only 35 percent of C- or D- felony dockets were transferred to Supreme Court. In contrast, in 2001, half of the B-felony dockets as compared to a quarter of the C- or D-felony dockets were transferred to the upper court. The strong relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is evident in Brooklyn, where the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was 25 percent for B-felony dockets but only 13 percent for dockets with lesser charges, and in Manhattan (55%, compared to only 41%). In Queens and the Bronx, however, dockets with lesser charges were showed higher rates of transfer to the upper court than did dockets with B-felony charges (68% versus 53% in Queens and 46% versus 40% in the Bronx). 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 2002 was 3, as it was in the previous reporting period. The median remained at 3 in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, and increased from 3 to 5 appearances in the Bronx and from 5 to 6 in Queens. 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 (3 appearances). Citywide there was no difference in the number of appearances by the severity of the affidavit charge nor was there a difference in Brooklyn or Manhattan. In the Bronx the median number of appearances was greater for cases charged at the C- or D-felony level (5) than for those charged at the B-felony level (4), while in Queens the median was higher in the B-felony category (7 appearances) than in the lesser charge category (5 appearances). The median number of days in Criminal Court was just over two weeks citywide, about the same as in the previous period, but here there are wide borough differences (Table 3d). The median number of days in Criminal Court was similar in the Bronx,

-33Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002 (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

Manhattan and Brooklyn, ranging from 10 to 13 days, but far longer Queens (58 days). The median number of days showed little change in Manhattan, decreased in the Bronx by three days, but increased sharply in Brooklyn (from 5 days to 13) and Queens (from 31 to 58 days). 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 at arraignment is about 5 or 6 days, compared to more than 8 weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, a median of less than three weeks elapses from arraignment to disposition in Brooklyn and the Bronx, compared to about three months in Queens and five and half months in Manhattan. Borough differences in length of case in Criminal Court are so strong that comparisons of median number of days by charge severity primarily reflect the borough composition at each charge level. Citywide, in this reporting period, C or D felony cases took a median of one day longer to reach disposition in Criminal Court than did B felony cases (15 days, compared to 14 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. In the Bronx, the B felony cases show a median length of case three days longer than did C or D felony cases and the B felony cases in Queens took four weeks longer. In Brooklyn and Manhattan, the lower charge category showed the longer length of case, and the difference is far greater in Manhattan (24 days for C or D felony cases, compared to 5 for B felonies) than in Brooklyn (14, versus less than 12).

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=214)

Percentage

3.3 0.5

48.1

30.8

4.2

13.1

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=117)

0.9

54.7

36.8

5.1 2.6

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=123)

2.4 0.8

58.5

15.4

4.1

18.7

Att. Murder 2

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Queens (N=67)

1.5

47.8

41.8

1.5

7.5

Assault 1

2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=521)

Other*

2.3 0.4

52.0

29.9

3.5

11.9

-34-

214

100.0%

19 0 3 4

3 72 5 0 8 3 0 0 4 0

1 0 1

123

100.0%

15.4% 0.0% 2.4% 3.3%

21.1%

2.4% 58.5% 4.1% 0.0% 6.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0%

77.2%

0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

1.6%

117

43 1 2 0

1 64 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

36.8% 0.9% 1.7% 0.0%

39.3%

0.9% 54.7% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

60.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

28 1 2 0

1 32 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

41.8% 1.5% 3.0% 0.0%

46.3%

1.5% 47.8% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

53.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

2 0 1

521

156 3 10 9

178

12 271 18 0 21 6 0 1 11 0

100.0%

29.9% 0.6% 1.9% 1.7%

34.2%

2.3% 52.0% 3.5% 0.0% 4.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.2% 2.1% 0.0%

65.3%

0.4% 0.0% 0.2%

0.6%

CITYWIDE %

340

TOTAL

66 1 3 5

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

30.8% 0.5% 1.4% 2.3%

35.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

64.5%

138 3.3% 48.1% 4.2% 0.0% 5.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

7 103 9 0 12 2 0 0 5 0

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 2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-35-

[521]

100%

Citywide

[67]

Queens

[117]

Manhattan

[123]

Bronx

[214]

Brooklyn

75%

(31.7)

(20.9)

50%

(11.1)

(26.0)

25%

(19.4)

(31.1)

(39.3)

(32.5)

(29.4)

50%

(37.2)

(49.6)

(41.5)

(59.7)

75% Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(21.0)

Transfers To FC

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

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

(49.5)

Dismissals

2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

-36-

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

(N=340)

30.0%

31.8%

B Felonies

38.2%

(N=3)

33.3%

Dismissals

A Felonies

66.7%

Percent

Transfers to SC

33.1%

32.0%

(N=178)

C or D Felonies

34.8%

Transfers to FC

2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

31.1%

31.7%

(N=521)

All Charges

37.2%

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

-37-

-38-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

0.5%

1.6%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.6%

1 2 0 0

33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

138

64.5%

77.2%

60.7%

53.7%

340

65.3%

35 34 69 0

25.4% 24.6% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32 38 25 0

33.7% 40.0% 26.3% 0.0% 100.0%

26 39 6 0

36.6% 54.9% 8.5% 0.0% 100.0%

9 19 8 0

25.0% 52.8% 22.2% 0.0% 100.0%

102 130 108 0

30.0% 38.2% 31.8% 0.0% 100.0%

35.0%

21.1%

39.3%

46.3%

178

34.2%

28 10 37 0

37.3% 13.3% 49.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 12 7 0

26.9% 46.2% 26.9% 0.0% 100.0%

20 19 7 0

43.5% 41.3% 15.2% 0.0% 100.0%

4 21 6 0

12.9% 67.7% 19.4% 0.0% 100.0%

59 62 57 0

33.1% 34.8% 32.0% 0.0% 100.0%

214

100.0%

123

100.0%

117

100.0%

521

100.0%

63 45 106 0

29.4% 21.0% 49.5% 0.0% 100.0%

40 51 32 0

32.5% 41.5% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%

46 58 13 0

39.3% 49.6% 11.1% 0.0% 100.0%

13 40 14 0

19.4% 59.7% 20.9% 0.0% 100.0%

162 194 165 0

31.1% 37.2% 31.7% 0.0% 100.0%

(N=337)

B Felonies

4.5

(N=3)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

Remand

(N=176)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=516)

All Charges

4 3

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

-39-

-40-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

7.0

5.0

0 0 1 0

3.0 -

1 0 0 1

9.0 5.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

9.0 3.0 5.0

138

3.0

4.0

3.0

7.0

337

3.0

44 16 75 3

3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0

32 3 53 5

3.0 7.0 5.0 3.0

18 2 49 1

5.0 5.5 3.0 5.0

4 1 29 2

11.0 1.0 7.0 6.0

98 22 206 11

4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0

3.0

5.0

3.0

5.0

176

3.0

35 5 35 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

8 2 15 0

6.0 5.0 5.0 -

16 3 25 1

4.5 4.0 3.0 1.0

6 3 22 0

3.5 6.0 5.0 -

65 13 97 1

3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0

214

3.0

120

5.0

115

3.0

6.0

516

3.0

79 21 111 3

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

41 5 68 6

5.0 7.0 5.0 4.0

34 5 74 2

5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

10 4 51 2

6.5 5.5 5.0 6.0

164 35 304 13

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

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.

100

150

200

250

185

(N=337)

(N=3)

B Felonies

27.5

Remand

(N=176)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=516)

All Charges

19 5

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

-41-

-42-

Table 3d Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

98.5

12.0

0 0 1 0

3.0 -

1 0 0 1

185.0 12.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

185.0 3.0 12.0

138

11.5

10.0

5.0

71.0

337

14.0

44 16 75 3

20.0 18.5 5.0 5.0

32 3 53 5

16.5 25.0 8.0 5.0

18 2 49 1

182.5 210.5 5.0 14.0

4 1 29 2

139.5 17.0 70.0 112.0

98 22 206 11

27.5 19.0 5.0 5.0

14.0

7.0

24.0

43.0

176

15.0

35 5 35 0

15.0 3.0 5.0 -

8 2 15 0

39.0 7.5 5.0 -

16 3 25 1

143.5 11.0 5.0 0.0

6 3 22 0

57.5 56.0 38.5 -

65 13 97 1

21.0 12.0 8.0 0.0

214

13.0

120

10.0

115

11.0

58.0

516

14.5

79 21 111 3

19.0 18.0 5.0 5.0

41 5 68 6

20.0 12.0 6.5 5.0

34 5 74 2

169.5 184.0 5.0 7.0

10 4 51 2

91.5 49.0 57.0 112.0

164 35 304 13

24.0 19.0 5.0 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.

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of juvenile cases that reached Supreme Court in 2002 (190) is lower than in 2001 (216) or 2000 (232), and much lower than in 1999 (372). The decrease was not reflected in each of the boroughs. The decrease was large in Brooklyn (from 67 cases arraigned in 2001 down to only 48 in 2002) and Queens (from 60 in 2001 down to 42) while the volume actually increased in Manhattan (by 8, to 59) and the Bronx (by 3, to 42). The different rates of change across the boroughs in the numbers of cases that arrive in the upper court have affected the borough composition of the upper court caseload. In 2002, the four largest boroughs accounted for more comparable proportions of the citywide volume of first appearances than in previous reporting periods. While Brooklyn has accounted for more new cases in the upper court than any other borough in previous years, in 2002 Brooklyn accounts for only a quarter while Manhattan accounts for three of every ten first appearances in Supreme Court. The Bronx and Queens each contribute 22 percent of the citywide volume of juvenile cases arriving in the upper court. 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 more than three quarters of the JO cases entering the upper court in 2002, slightly more than in the previous reporting period. Although second degree murder and attempted second degree murder charges account for less than one percent of all arrests during this reporting period, these charges account for five percent of cases that reached the upper court in the period. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for a fifth of all juvenile arrests during 2002, but more than four of every ten of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together account for three of every ten arrests but six of every ten 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, only 15 percent of the defendants in cases that reached Supreme Court in 2002 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, the lowest plea rate in this reporting series. Nearly a quarter of the juveniles pled guilty at the first appearance in 2001, compared to 18 percent in 2000 and 1999, but more than a quarter in 1998 and 1997. More than half of the defendants pled not guilty at their first appearance and 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 dramatic. Queens again shows the highest proportion of cases where defendants pled guilty (60%). However, the plea rate at the first appearance in the Bronx has declined so that it is now as about as rare for defendants in juvenile cases in the Bronx (5%) to pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court as in Brooklyn (2%) or Manhattan (2%). 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.

-44Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

The large proportion of guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance in Queens reflects differences in plea policies and changes in the use of a Superior Court Information (SCI).16 In 1996 through 1998 in Queens and the Bronx, juveniles pled guilty at the first upper court appearance in between four and six of every ten cases that arrived in Supreme Court. Guilty pleas at this early point in the upper court continued to be frequent in Queens in 1999 (55%), 2000 (62%), 2001 (72%) and 2002 (60%). In the Bronx, however, the rate was far lower during those years (26%, 15%, 20%, and 5%). Barely a handful of juveniles have pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance in any reporting period in Brooklyn or Manhattan. 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 five of every ten cases, higher than the four of every ten who secured release at this point in previous reporting periods. Citywide, juveniles prosecuted in the Supreme Court were released on ROR at the first appearance in more than two of every ten cases, slightly lower than in 2001 (25%). Juveniles posted bail to secure release as of the date of the first appearance in more than a quarter of cases, were held on bail in almost a quarter of cases, and more than a quarter of the cases were remanded with no bail set at that early stage of Supreme Court prosecution. The largest change is the sharp increase in the proportion of cases where the juvenile secured release on bail and similar decrease in the proportion of cases where the juvenile was held on bail. The rate of bail making as of the first appearance in the upper court was 28 percent in 2002, compared to only 15 percent in 2001 while cases in which the juvenile was held on bail decreased from 34 percent to 23 percent. The citywide release rate varied little by charge. As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in half of all cases with B-felony charges and 53 percent with C- or D-felony charges. However, the data show a wide difference in the bail-set-not-made category: juveniles who faced more severe felony charges were more likely to be held on bail (27%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (18%). The increase in the proportion of cases with juvenile defendants released on bail as of the first appearance in Supreme Court is visible in each borough. Defendants in juvenile cases were about twice as likely to have secured release on bail as of this early stage in prosecution in 2002 as in 2001 regardless of the borough. Yet juveniles in cases in Queens were far more likely to be released on bail (51%) than were the juveniles in Brooklyn (33%), the Bronx (17%) or Manhattan (16%). The rate of release on recognizance dropped sharply in Queens (to 11%, from 25% in 2001 and from 40% in 2000) and changed little in the other boroughs. A juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chance of ROR as of the first 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.

-45Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

appearance in the upper court remained at about one in every five in Brooklyn and Manhattan and two of every five in the Bronx. Together, juveniles were released on recognizance or on bail in only a third of the cases at the first appearance in Supreme Court in Manhattan (33%), more than half in Brooklyn (53%) and the Bronx (57%), and more than six of every ten in Queens (62%). As in 2001, the proportion of cases in 2002 in which the juvenile was remanded with no bail set was higher in Manhattan (47%), than in the other boroughs (24%, 18% and 12%, in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, respectively). 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. In 2002, as in 2001, citywide, it took a median of roughly two weeks (15 days), to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d). As in 2001, in 2002, Bfelony cases took a median of 15 days, and C- or D-felony cases took 14 days to reach disposition in the upper court. 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 one day (to 8 days) while the median number of days decreased by two days in the Bronx (to 15 days). 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. Further, citywide figures seem to reflect the borough composition of particular charge-release status combinations. Overall, average number of days from lower to upper court tends to varies less by charge severity or defendant release status than by the borough of prosecution.

-46-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 2002 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 44.2%

Murder 2 1.1% Other* 10.0%

Att. Murder 2 4.2%

Assault 1 7.9% Robbery 2 32.6%

(N=190)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=48)

Percentage

6.3

35.4

25.0

16.7

Murder 2

2.4 2.4

52.4

14.3

Manhattan (N=58)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=42)

Att. Murder 2

3.4

41.4

46.6

6.9 1.7

Assault 1

2002 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=42)

Other*

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

4.8 2.4

50.0

40.5

2.4

-47-

100.0%

6 0 0 2

1 22 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

1 2 0

100.0%

14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

19.0%

2.4% 52.4% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

73.8%

2.4% 4.8% 0.0%

7.1%

27 0 1 1

2 24 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

46.6% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7%

50.0%

3.4% 41.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

50.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

17 0 0 0

2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

40.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40.5%

4.8% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

57.1%

2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

2.4%

Queens %

2 2 0

190

62 1 3 4

8 84 15 0 2 3 0 1 3 0

100.0%

32.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.1%

36.8%

4.2% 44.2% 7.9% 0.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.6% 0.0%

61.1%

1.1% 1.1% 0.0%

2.1%

CITYWIDE %

116

TOTAL

12 1 2 1

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

25.0% 2.1% 4.2% 2.1%

33.3%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

66.7%

32 6.3% 35.4% 16.7% 0.0% 4.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 17 8 0 2 1 0 0 1 0

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 2002 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-48-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=48)

Percentage

2.1

68.8

4.2

25.0

Pled Guilty

Bronx (N=42)

4.8

64.3

31.0

Pled Not Guilty

Manhattan (N=58)

1.7

62.1

36.2

Disposition Dismissed

59.5

21.4

4.8

9.5

4.8

Citywide (N=190)

Bench Warrant

Queens (N=42)

Continued

2002 JO Supreme Court Appearances

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

15.3

55.3

2.1

26.3

1.1

-49-

-50-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2002 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 % 3

7.1%

0 3 0 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

2.1%

0 1 0 0 0 0

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

0 4 0 0 0 0

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

66.7%

73.8%

50.0%

57.1%

116

61.1%

1 24 1 0 6 0

3.1% 75.0% 3.1% 0.0% 18.8% 0.0% 100.0%

1 21 0 0 9 0

3.2% 67.7% 0.0% 0.0% 29.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 19 0 0 10 0

0.0% 65.5% 0.0% 0.0% 34.5% 0.0% 100.0%

14 3 2 0 3 2

58.3% 12.5% 8.3% 0.0% 12.5% 8.3% 100.0%

16 67 3 0 28 2

13.8% 57.8% 2.6% 0.0% 24.1% 1.7% 100.0%

33.3%

19.0%

50.0%

40.5%

36.8%

0 9 1 0 6 0

0.0% 56.3% 6.3% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

1 3 0 0 4 0

12.5% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 17 0 0 11 0

3.4% 58.6% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11 5 0 0 1 0

64.7% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%

13 34 1 0 22 0

18.6% 48.6% 1.4% 0.0% 31.4% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

190

100.0%

1 33 2 0 12 0

2.1% 68.8% 4.2% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 27 0 0 13 0

4.8% 64.3% 0.0% 0.0% 31.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 36 0 0 21 0

1.7% 62.1% 0.0% 0.0% 36.2% 0.0% 100.0%

25 9 2 0 4 2

59.5% 21.4% 4.8% 0.0% 9.5% 4.8% 100.0%

29 105 4 0 50 2

15.3% 55.3% 2.1% 0.0% 26.3% 1.1% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=45)

Percentage

20.0

33.3

28.9

17.8

40.5

16.7

31.0

11.9

Manhattan (N=57)

17.5

15.8

19.3

47.4

10.8

51.4

13.5

24.3

Remand

Queens (N=37)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=42)

ROR

2002 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=181)

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

22.1

27.6

23.2

27.1

-51-

-52-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2002 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 % 3

7.1%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.7%

2.2%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

68.9%

73.8%

49.1%

51.4%

109

60.2%

5 13 9 4

16.1% 41.9% 29.0% 12.9% 100.0%

13 6 9 3

41.9% 19.4% 29.0% 9.7% 100.0%

5 2 8 13

17.9% 7.1% 28.6% 46.4% 100.0%

1 9 3 6

5.3% 47.4% 15.8% 31.6% 100.0%

24 30 29 26

22.0% 27.5% 26.6% 23.9% 100.0%

31.1%

19.0%

50.9%

45.9%

37.6%

4 2 4 4

28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 100.0%

4 1 3 0

50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 7 3 14

17.2% 24.1% 10.3% 48.3% 100.0%

3 10 2 2

17.6% 58.8% 11.8% 11.8% 100.0%

16 20 12 20

23.5% 29.4% 17.6% 29.4% 100.0%

100.0%

181

100.0%

9 15 13 8

20.0% 33.3% 28.9% 17.8% 100.0%

17 7 13 5

40.5% 16.7% 31.0% 11.9% 100.0%

10 9 11 27

17.5% 15.8% 19.3% 47.4% 100.0%

4 19 5 9

10.8% 51.4% 13.5% 24.3% 100.0%

40 50 42 49

22.1% 27.6% 23.2% 27.1% 100.0%

(N=106)

16.5

(N=4)

15.5

B Felonies

22.5

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

Remand

(N=67)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2002 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

(N=177)

All Charges

15.5 15.5

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

-53-

-54-

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 2002 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

22.0

19.0

20.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 2

22.0 56.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

19.0

0 0 1 3

22.0 19.0

29.0

15.0

8.0

0.0

106

15.0

5 13 9 4

23.0 29.0 34.0 27.0

11 6 9 3

15.0 24.5 15.0 14.0

5 2 7 13

11.0 18.0 11.0 7.0

1 9 3 6

0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0

22 30 28 26

15.5 22.5 16.5 7.0

27.0

17.0

8.5

0.0

14.0

4 2 4 4

28.0 33.5 27.0 27.5

4 1 3 0

17.0 12.0 20.0 -

5 7 2 14

15.0 15.0 8.0 7.5

3 10 2 2

0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0

16 20 11 20

16.0 14.0 21.0 8.0

28.0

15.0

8.0

0.0

177

15.0

9 15 13 8

23.0 29.0 27.0 27.5

15 7 13 5

15.0 21.0 15.0 14.0

10 9 9 27

14.5 15.0 9.0 7.0

4 19 5 9

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

38 50 40 49

15.5 15.5 19.0 8.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 13 cases: 4 dismissals and 5 cases missing release status, and 4 missing number of days

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, only 154 cases of juvenile offenders reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2002, a decrease of nearly one third from the 226 disposed in the upper court in 2001, which in turn followed a twelve percent drop from the 258 disposed in 2000. Borough comparisons of the volume of cases disposed in 2002 and 2001 in the upper courts show a decline of only ten juvenile cases in the Bronx and Queens and only 13 cases in Manhattan. In contrast, the volume of dispositions in Brooklyn decreased by more than half, from 75 cases disposed in 2001 to only 36 disposed in 2002. The result is a substantial shift in the borough composition of the citywide dispositions of juvenile cases in the Supreme Court. Brooklyn now accounts for less than a quarter of all of the dispositions, compared to about a third in previous reporting periods. Manhattan cases account for the largest proportion of the citywide volume (31%, up from 27%), followed by Queens (28%, up from 23%) and the Bronx (17%, compared to 16% in 2001). The charge composition of cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions examined at other milestones in this report (Exhibit 5A.1 and Table 5a). As in the previous reporting period, first degree robbery is the most common charge at disposition in the upper court. However, there has been a shift from first degree robbery, which accounts for 45 percent of the disposed cases in 2002, compared to 51 percent in 2001, to second degree robbery (33% in 2002, compared to 21% in 2001). Still, first and second degree robbery together account for the vast majority of upper court dispositions (78%, up from 72% in 2001). After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault which accounts for six percent of Supreme Court dispositions. Afelony charges account for two percent of disposed cases, B-felony charges account for six of every ten 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, and the range is wider in 2002 than it was in 2001. During the previous reporting period, the proportion of disposed cases with first or second degree robbery charges ranged from a low of 62 percent in the Bronx to a high of 80 percent in Manhattan. In 2002, the proportion of cases with robbery charges was even lower in the Bronx (56%), increased by seven percentage points to 72 percent in Brooklyn, changed little in Manhattan (83%) and increased by 13 percentage points to 90 percent in Queens. A range of 18 percentage points increased to a range of 34 percentage points. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high: Overall, 93 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, up from 88 percent in 2001. The conviction rates in Manhattan (96%) and Queens (91%) changed little from the previous reporting period but increased in the Bronx (from 86% to 93%) and especially in Brooklyn (from 79% to 92%). Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were slightly more likely to show convictions (96%) than were the cases disposed at the B-felony level (92%), and the

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

increase in conviction rates occurred only at the C- or D- felony level (from 84% in 2001 to 96% in 2002). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juvenile defendants were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in more than half (59%) of the cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. This is higher than the 53 percent release rate as of dispositions in 2001 or the 48 percent release rate at dispositions in 2000. The juveniles were twice as likely to secured release on bail (28%, up from 14%) in 2002 but less likely to be released on recognizance (31%, down from 39%) pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing. As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for the defendants in juvenile cases to be held on bail as of disposition; in fewer than one in every ten disposed cases was the juvenile in detention because the bail could not be met. Borough differences in release rates for juveniles in the cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were extremely wide. While the low volume of cases in which a release status was set at disposition in some of the boroughs, particularly the Bronx (25), makes small percentage differences unreliable, the borough differences remain striking. For example, the defendants were released on recognizance in nearly half of the juvenile offender cases disposed in Supreme Court in Manhattan, but in only 16 percent of cases disposed in Queens. In contrast, juveniles were released on bail in half of the cases disposed in Queens but only nine percent of those disposed in Manhattan. Queens (67%) showed the highest rate of release at disposition when release on bail or on recognizance are considered together, compared to 59, 56 and 48 percent, respectively, in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx. When compared to the previous reporting period, release on recognizance considered alone decreased and bail-making increased sharply in each of the boroughs except Manhattan. Exhibit 5D.1 and 5D.2 present information regarding the Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts). Exhibit 5D.1 presents the proportion disposed in those parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information about any differences in type of disposition, separately for each felony severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, the proportion is nearly three quarters (73%), ranging between 59 percent and 79 percent in previous reporting periods. 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 (100%), followed by the Bronx (85%) and Brooklyn (83%), compared to only 28 percent in Queens. The lower proportion in Queens seems to reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in nonJO Parts and, as noted earlier, Queens makes greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. 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.

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

In previous reporting periods, conviction rates have been higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts. In 2001, for example, 90 percent of the cases in the JO Parts resulted in conviction, compared to only 83 percent in the non-JO Part. In the current reporting period, however, conviction was equally likely in the JO and non-JO Parts (93%). 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 conviction rates might be related to the type of court part, the kinds of cases assigned to JO or non-JO parts, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. It seems likely, however, that the high conviction rates in non-JO Parts reflect the inclusion of so many SCI cases, cases that imply that the plea is already entered. 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 (78) was ten days shorter than in the previous year. In general, the median number of appearances (50) and days (836) was very high for the small number of cases (4) disposed at the A-felony level. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were slightly longer for cases with B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 87 days) and for cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (6 appearances and 62 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 eleven 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, remaining the same in three boroughs but increasing from 8 to 11 appearances in the Bronx. 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 67 days in Brooklyn, 119 in Manhattan, and 161 in the Bronx. The average number of days was the same in this reporting period as in the previous year in Queens, decreased by two weeks in Manhattan and by three weeks in Brooklyn, and increased by more than two months in the Bronx. The sharp increase in the Bronx in 2002 followed a comparable decrease the previous year and a similar decrease the year before. The citywide length-of-case figures were lower in 2002 than in previous years. The juvenile cases took an average of two and half months to be disposed in the upper court in 2002, compared to three months in both 1999 and 2001, and 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 bail (5 appearances, 56 days) reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were released on

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

recognizance (8 appearance, 92 days) or those with juveniles who were held on bail (7 appearances, 102 days) or who were remanded with no bail set (7 appearances, 103 days). This pattern, however, is not clearly visible in each borough and has not been the same in previous reporting periods, 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 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 type of prosecutorial instrument (SCI versus indictment) seems to account for more variation in length of case than does the severity of the disposition charge, or, as shown earlier in the section, the release status set at disposition. However, borough differences persist even among the cases prosecuted in the JO Parts.

-59-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 44.8%

Att. Murder 2 4.5% Murder 2 1.9% Assault 1 6.5%

Other* 9.1%

Robbery 2 33.1%

(N=154)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=36)

Percentage

5.6

44.4

27.8

8.3

13.9

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=48) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

3.7 3.7

40.7

14.8

22.2

14.8

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=27)

Att. Murder 2

2.1 4.2

39.6

43.8

2.1

8.3

Assault 1

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

Queens (N=43)

Other*

7.0

53.5

37.2

2.3

-60-

100.0%

4 0 0 2

1 11 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4%

22.2%

3.7% 40.7% 22.2% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%

74.1%

3.7% 0.0% 0.0%

3.7%

21 0 0 0

1 19 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

43.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

43.8%

2.1% 39.6% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0%

52.1%

4.2% 0.0% 0.0%

4.2%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

16 0 0 0

3 23 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

37.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

37.2%

7.0% 53.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

62.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

51 0 1 4

7 69 10 0 2 4 0 2 1 0

3 0 0

100.0%

33.1% 0.0% 0.6% 2.6%

36.4%

4.5% 44.8% 6.5% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.6% 0.0%

61.7%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

CITYWIDE %

154

TOTAL

10 0 1 2

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

27.8% 0.0% 2.8% 5.6%

36.1%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.9%

23 5.6% 44.4% 8.3% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

2 16 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

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 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=36)

Percentage

91.7

8.3

Manhattan (N=48)

95.8

4.2

Queens (N=43)

90.7

9.3

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=27)

92.6

7.4

Disposition Conviction Other*

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=154)

92.9

7.1

-62-

-63-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

A FELONIES:

Conviction Other Subtotal

0 0

B FELONIES:

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

0.0%

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

Queens %

3.7%

4.2%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

63.9%

74.1%

52.1%

21 2

91.3% 8.7% 100.0%

19 1

95.0% 5.0% 100.0%

24 1

96.0% 4.0% 100.0%

36.1%

22.2%

12 1

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

6 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

33 3

91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

25 2

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.9%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

62.8%

61.7%

23 4

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

87 8

91.6% 8.4% 100.0%

43.8%

37.2%

36.4%

20 1

95.2% 4.8% 100.0%

16 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

54 2

96.4% 3.6% 100.0%

100.0%

154

100.0%

92.6% 7.4% 100.0%

46 2

95.8% 4.2% 100.0%

39 4

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

143 11

92.9% 7.1% 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. * "Other" includes cases transferred to Family Court, dismissed, acquitted or abated by death.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=32)

Percentage

25.0

34.4

12.5

28.1

28.0

20.0

8.0

44.0

Manhattan (N=46)

47.8

8.7

6.5

37.0

16.2

51.4

2.7

29.7

Remand

Queens (N=37)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=25)

ROR

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=140)

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

30.7

27.9

7.1

34.3

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens %

4.3%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 2

1.4%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

65.6%

76.0%

52.2%

62.2%

62.1%

3 8 3 7

14.3% 38.1% 14.3% 33.3% 100.0%

6 3 2 8

31.6% 15.8% 10.5% 42.1% 100.0%

14 1 2 7

58.3% 4.2% 8.3% 29.2% 100.0%

3 12 1 7

13.0% 52.2% 4.3% 30.4% 100.0%

26 24 8 29

29.9% 27.6% 9.2% 33.3% 100.0%

34.4%

24.0%

43.5%

37.8%

36.4%

5 3 1 2

45.5% 27.3% 9.1% 18.2% 100.0%

1 2 0 3

16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

8 3 1 8

40.0% 15.0% 5.0% 40.0% 100.0%

3 7 0 4

21.4% 50.0% 0.0% 28.6% 100.0%

17 15 2 17

33.3% 29.4% 3.9% 33.3% 100.0%

100.0%

140

100.0%

8 11 4 9

25.0% 34.4% 12.5% 28.1% 100.0%

7 5 2 11

28.0% 20.0% 8.0% 44.0% 100.0%

22 4 3 17

47.8% 8.7% 6.5% 37.0% 100.0%

6 19 1 11

16.2% 51.4% 2.7% 29.7% 100.0%

43 39 10 48

30.7% 27.9% 7.1% 34.3% 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 8 dismissals as well as 6 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=36)

Percentage

83.3

16.7

Bronx (N=27)

85.2

14.8

Manhattan (N=48)

100.0

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=43)

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

27.9

72.1

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

Citywide (N=154)

73.4

26.6

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=95)

(N=3)

1.4

13.0

A Felonies

5.6

87.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

33.3

93.1

5.3

100.0

(N=56)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

94.7

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

JO Part Non-JO Part

60.0

66.7

Percent

Convicted

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

6.2 0.9

92.7

7.3

(N=154)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

92.9

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

-67-

-68Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

3.7%

4.2%

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.9%

0 0 0

2 0 1 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 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

63.9%

74.1%

52.1%

62.8%

61.7%

19 1 0 20

95.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 1 19

94.7% 0.0% 5.3% 100.0%

24 0 1 25

96.0% 0.0% 4.0% 100.0%

6 0 2 8

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

67 1 4 72

93.1% 1.4% 5.6% 100.0%

2 0 1 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

17 0 2 19

89.5% 0.0% 10.5% 100.0%

20 0 3 23

87.0% 0.0% 13.0% 100.0%

36.1%

22.2%

43.8%

37.2%

36.4%

9 0 1 10

90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

20 0 1 21

95.2% 0.0% 4.8% 100.0%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

36 0 2 38

94.7% 0.0% 5.3% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

12 0 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 0 18

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

154

100.0%

28 1 1 30

93.3% 3.3% 3.3% 100.0%

21 0 2 23

91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 100.0%

46 0 2 48

95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 100.0%

10 0 2 12

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

105 1 7 113

92.9% 0.9% 6.2% 100.0%

5 0 1 6

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

29 0 2 31

93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 100.0%

38 0 3 41

92.7% 0.0% 7.3% 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.

(N=87)

B Felonies

(N=4)

A Felonies

50.5

Median Number of Days

ROR

7 2

Remand

(N=54)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=145)

All Charges

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

-69-

-70-

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 2002 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

44.0

57.0

50.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

44.0

0 0 0 3

57.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4

50.5

7.0

11.0

10.5

1.0

7.0

1 6 11 4

9.0 7.0 5.0 12.5

3 4 9 5

12.0 8.0 11.0 9.0

5 3 4 10

11.0 24.0 10.0 8.0

1 11 4 6

1.0 1.0 6.5 1.0

10 24 28 25

10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

7.0

4.0

9.0

1.0

5.5

4 1 5 1

5.0 7.0 5.0 7.0

2 1 2 0

11.0 4.0 12.0 -

3 3 3 13

9.0 7.0 11.0 9.0

3 7 4 2

1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0

12 12 14 16

3.0 2.0 7.0 8.0

7.0

11.0

9.0

1.0

145

7.0

5 7 16 5

7.0 7.0 5.0 11.0

5 5 11 6

12.0 5.0 11.0 11.0

8 6 7 26

10.0 14.0 11.0 9.0

4 18 8 8

1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0

22 36 42 45

8.0 5.0 7.0 7.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 9 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

(N=87)

B Felonies

68.5

(N=4)

175 91

113

75.5

Remand

(N=54)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

836

Median Number of Days

ROR

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

101.5 103

(N=145)

All Charges

91.5

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:

-71-

-72-

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 2002 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

616.0

3 1056.0

836.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

616.0

0 0 0 3 1056.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4

836.0

92.5

161.0

157.5

0.0

87.0

1 6 11 4

206.0 67.0 98.0 149.5

3 4 9 5

196.0 112.0 92.0 176.0

5 3 4 10

154.0 431.0 121.5 119.0

1 11 4 6

0.0 0.0 66.0 0.0

10 24 28 25

175.0 68.5 95.0 91.0

61.0

21.0

78.5

0.0

62.0

4 1 5 1

84.0 49.0 56.0 35.0

2 1 2 0

80.5 15.0 91.5 -

3 3 3 13

80.0 63.0 105.0 103.0

3 7 4 2

0.0 0.0 134.0 0.0

12 12 14 16

63.0 7.0 113.0 75.5

67.0

161.0

119.0

0.0

145

78.0

5 7 16 5

103.0 67.0 76.5 122.0

5 5 11 6

161.0 84.0 92.0 200.0

8 6 7 26

130.5 101.5 105.0 140.0

4 18 8 8

0.0 0.0 127.5 0.0

22 36 42 45

91.5 56.0 101.5 103.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 9 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=95)

(N=3)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=56)

C or D Felonies

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=154)

All Charges

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

-73-

-74-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

44.0

36.0

44.0

0 0

1 0

44.0 -

2 0

36.0 -

0 0

3 0

44.0 -

7.0

11.0

1.0

7.0

20 3

7.0 3.0

19 1

11.0 1.0

25 0

11.0 -

8 19

5.0 1.0

72 23

9.0 1.0

7.0

4.5

9.0

1.0

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

10 3

6.0 8.0

3 3

21.0 3.0

21 0

9.0 -

4 12

7.0 1.0

38 18

7.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

11.0

9.5

1.0

154

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

30 6

7.0 5.0

23 4

12.0 2.0

48 0

9.5 -

12 31

7.0 1.0

113 41

9.0 1.0

A FELONIES: 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

200

300

400

500

600

700

B Felonies (N=95)

(N=3)

127

A Felonies

616

Median Number of Days

(N=56)

C or D Felonies

78.5

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=154)

All Charges

118

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

-75-

-76-

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

616.0

681.5

616.0

0 0

1 0

616.0 -

2 0

681.5 -

0 0

3 0

616.0 -

87.0

168.5

161.0

0.0

87.0

20 3

92.5 67.0

19 1

176.0 0.0

25 0

161.0 -

8 19

56.0 0.0

72 23

127.0 0.0

60.0

52.5

77.0

0.0

60.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

10 3

52.5 103.0

3 3

161.0 15.0

21 0

77.0 -

4 12

134.0 0.0

38 18

78.5 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

67.0

161.0

122.5

0.0

154

77.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

30 6

67.0 85.0

23 4

162.0 7.5

48 0

122.5 -

12 31

120.0 0.0

113 41

118.0 0.0

A FELONIES: 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.

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

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 147 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2002 were for juvenile offenders, far fewer than the 207 and 216 sentences in 2001 and 2000, respectively. The decrease in the volume of sentences was greatest in Brooklyn where about half as many cases were sentenced in 2002 (33) as in 2001 (60). The volume of sentences also declined sharply in Manhattan (from 65 to 46) and in the Bronx (from 36 to 23) with little change in the Queens (a decrease of one sentence). The borough composition of the sentences has thereby shifted again, with fewer of the sentences coming from Brooklyn (22%, down from 29%) and more coming from Queens (31%, up from 22%) while Manhattan (31%) and Bronx (16%) cases account for about the same proportion of sentences as in the previous reporting period. Overall, about half of the sentences for JOs in 2002 were custodial, as was true in 2001. This includes either imprisonment only (41%) or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;splitâ&#x20AC;? sentence including both imprisonment and probation (10%). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles received were large. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn (67%) were more likely to be incarcerative than were sentences in other boroughs and sentences were least likely to include incarceration in Manhattan (33%). Incarcerative sentences account for just over a half of sentences in the Bronx (56%) and Queens (56%). Probation with no incarceration was most common in Manhattan (65%), followed by Queens and the Bronx (both 44%) and lowest in Brooklyn (33%). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of a custodial sanction was higher for the juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (55%) than for those convicted at lesser severity levels (38%). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given to juvenile offenders in 2002 in the JO Parts to those given to juvenile offenders in non-JO Parts, citywide, and for different conviction-charge severities. Sentences for juveniles convicted in JO Parts in 2002 differ little from the sentences for those convicted in non-JO Parts with about four of every ten juveniles sentenced to straight imprisonment, regardless of the type of court part. Split sentences were more frequent in the non-JO Parts (16%, compared to 7% in the JO Parts). Sentences in JO Parts (51%) were more likely to require probation only than were sentences in the non-JO Parts (45%). These differences primarily reflect differences at the B-felony level, where the observed differences were wider: Half of the sentences given to juveniles in cases disposed at the B-felony level in a JO Part required probation only, compared to only 36 percent of the sentences in comparable cases in non-JO Parts. The pattern was different at the C- or D-felony disposition charge level, probably because so few cases (14) with juveniles convicted at that severity level reached sentencing the in non-JO Parts during the reporting period. Exhibit 6B.2 presents similar information without regard to charge for each borough and citywide. The sentencing differences seem to be attributable at least in part to differences in the use of JO Parts in the boroughs, rather than simply to the sentencing

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

tendencies of specialized court parts for juveniles. Juveniles in Manhattan are far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to the JO Part than are juveniles in other boroughs, so the sentencing patterns in JO Parts are more likely to reflect the patterns characteristic of Manhattan than those of the other boroughs. In 2002, Manhattan alone accounts for fully half of the sentences in JO Parts. In Queens, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences account for the majority (60%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2002. 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 (78%) than in non-JO Parts (22%) in 2002, they account for only 16 percent of sentences during the reporting period. Surprisingly, sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn were about as likely to take place in a JO Part as in a non-JO Part. In 2002, the Brooklyn sentences account for nearly one in every five sentences in a JO Part and nearly three of every ten sentences in a non-JO Part. Exhibit 6C.1 displays the conditions of sentence granted in the JO Parts compared to the non-JO Parts citywide, for different conviction-charge classes. Citywide, juveniles were granted YO status in 76 percent of sentences during the reporting period, compared to 78 percent in 2001, 72 percent in 2000 and 84 percent in 1999. Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were more likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (80%, compared to 69%). 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 seven of every ten of the sentences in Queens and the Bronx, three quarters of the sentences in Brooklyn, and 85 percent of those in Manhattan. Again, the JO Part totals disproportionately reflect the conditions of sentence granted in Manhattan, while the non-JO Part totals disproportionately reflect those granted in Queens. Again, borough comparisons by type of court part are limited because of low volume. Queens cases, which, as mentioned above, account for six 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 (71%) than in the JO Part (60% of 10 sentences). The pattern is reversed in Brooklyn where 81 percent of the 16 juveniles sentenced in the JO Part received YO status, compared to only 71 percent of the 17 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 2002 for each of the convictioncharge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2002 appeared a median of 11 times in Supreme Court, and a median of 234 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was two appearances and nearly two months longer. However, length of case in 2002 is very similar to length of case in 2000 (11 appearances and 245 days).

-79Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (4 appearances, 56 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of 10 appearance in Brooklyn (228 days), 12 appearances in the Bronx (238 days) and 22 appearances (540 days) in Manhattan. The median number of appearances decreased by three appearances in Brooklyn, decreased by one appearance in the Bronx, increased by one appearance in Queens and increased by two and half appearances in Manhattan. The median number of days decreased by a month and a half in Brooklyn, remained the same in the Bronx and Queens, and increased by nearly three months in Manhattan. 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. 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 or by release status and conviction-charge 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 but before imposition of sentence, and that release is not reflected in the release status data in this report. 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 (17 appearances and 335 days) than for those sentenced in other parts (5 appearances and 111 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 18 appearances and 364 days in the JO Parts and five appearances and 99 days in 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. This is especially evident in Manhattan where virtually all cases are disposed in the JO Part. 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. However, length of case did not vary by charge severity at disposition. The median number of appearances and days for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (11 appearances and 231 days) were similar to those for juveniles convicted at the C- or D-felony level (11 appearances and 201 days) but 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. 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

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

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 four times longer than the citywide average, taking an average of two weeks citywide but two months in Queens. For the juveniles who were held on bail, the median number of days in Queens is ten times longer (57 days, compared to only 5 citywide). 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. 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=33)

Percentage

45.5

21.2

33.3

Bronx (N=23)

Imprisonment

56.5

43.5

Manhattan (N=46)

32.6

65.2

2.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=45)

Probation

2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

37.8

17.8

44.4

Other

Citywide (N=147)

40.8

10.2

48.3

0.7

-81-

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

6.5%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 3

2.0%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

81.8%

78.3%

58.7%

71.1%

104

70.7%

12 6 9 0

44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 8 0

55.6% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 16 1

37.0% 0.0% 59.3% 3.7% 100.0%

12 7 13 0

37.5% 21.9% 40.6% 0.0% 100.0%

44 13 46 1

42.3% 12.5% 44.2% 1.0% 100.0%

18.2%

21.7%

34.8%

28.9%

27.2%

3 1 2 0

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 2 0

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 14 0

12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 1 7 0

38.5% 7.7% 53.8% 0.0% 100.0%

13 2 25 0

32.5% 5.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

147

100.0%

15 7 11 0

45.5% 21.2% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 10 0

56.5% 0.0% 43.5% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0 30 1

32.6% 0.0% 65.2% 2.2% 100.0%

17 8 20 0

37.8% 17.8% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

60 15 71 1

40.8% 10.2% 48.3% 0.7% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1.7

(N=104)

Non-JO Part

(N=3)

JO Part

8.3

36.4

18.2

45.5

B Felonies

Non-JO Part

40.0

50.0

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Imprisonment

57.7

Other

(N=40)

C or D Felonies

Non-JO Part

7.1

21.4

71.4

Probation

JO Part

3.8

38.5

Sentence Imp. and Probation

2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

6.7 1.1

44.8

Non-JO Part

15.5

39.7

(N=147)

All Felonies

JO Part

41.6

50.6

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

-83-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=17)

(N=16)

41.2

23.5

35.3

JO Part

Brooklyn

50.0

18.8

31.3

Percentage

(N=18)

JO Part

40.0

60.0

(N=5)

Non JO Part

Bronx

61.1

38.9

Imprisonment

(N=45)

JO Part

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

31.1

66.7

2.2

100.0

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=10)

JO Part

(N=35)

Non JO Part

37.1

14.3

48.6

Other

Queens

40.0

30.0

Probation

2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

39.7

15.5

44.8

(N=89) (N=58)

JO Part

Citywide

41.6

6.7

50.6

1.1

-84-

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

6.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

2.0%

0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0

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

81.8%

78.3%

58.7%

71.1%

104

70.7%

6 2 5 0 13

46.2% 15.4% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 7 0 15

53.3% 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 16 1 27

37.0% 0.0% 59.3% 3.7% 100.0%

0 3 2 0 5

0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

24 5 30 1 60

40.0% 8.3% 50.0% 1.7% 100.0%

6 4 4 0 14

42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

12 4 11 0 27

44.4% 14.8% 40.7% 0.0% 100.0%

20 8 16 0 44

45.5% 18.2% 36.4% 0.0% 100.0%

18.2%

21.7%

34.8%

28.9%

27.2%

2 1 0 0 3

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 14 0 15

6.7% 0.0% 93.3% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 1 0 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 1 15 0 26

38.5% 3.8% 57.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0 3

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 6 0 8

12.5% 12.5% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 10 0 14

21.4% 7.1% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

147

100.0%

8 3 5 0 16

50.0% 18.8% 31.3% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 7 0 18

61.1% 0.0% 38.9% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 30 1 45

31.1% 0.0% 66.7% 2.2% 100.0%

4 3 3 0 10

40.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37 6 45 1 89

41.6% 6.7% 50.6% 1.1% 100.0%

7 4 6 0 17

41.2% 23.5% 35.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 5 17 0 35

37.1% 14.3% 48.6% 0.0% 100.0%

23 9 26 0 58

39.7% 15.5% 44.8% 0.0% 100.0%

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

34.1

(N=104)

23.1

21.4

Non-JO Part

78.6

(N=40)

C or D Felonies

JO Part

76.9

Not Youthful Offender

Non-JO Part

B Felonies

JO Part

15.0

65.9

(N=3)

Non-JO Part

85.0

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Youthful Offender

2002 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

20.2

31.0

Non-JO Part

69.0

(N=147)

All Charges

JO Part

79.8

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

-86-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=17)

(N=16)

70.6

29.4

JO Part

Brooklyn

81.3

18.8

Percentage

(N=18)

JO Part

60.0

40.0

(N=5)

Non JO Part

Bronx

72.2

27.8

(N=45)

JO Part

100.0

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

86.7

13.3

Non JO Part

71.4

28.6

(N=10) (N=35)

JO Part

Queens

60.0

40.0

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

79.8

20.2

Non JO Part

69.0

31.0

(N=89) (N=58)

JO Part

Citywide

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

-87-

-88-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

6.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

2.0%

0 0

0 3 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 3 3

0 0

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

81.8%

78.3%

58.7%

71.1%

104

70.7%

11 2 13

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

10 5 15

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

25 2 27

92.6% 7.4% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

51 9 60

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

10 4 14

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0

17 10 27

63.0% 37.0% 100.0%

29 15 44

65.9% 34.1% 100.0%

18.2%

21.7%

34.8%

28.9%

27.2%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1 15

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

1 4 5

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

20 6 26

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8 0 8

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11 3 14

78.6% 21.4% 100.0%

100.0%

147

100.0%

13 3 16

81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

13 5 18

72.2% 27.8% 100.0%

39 6 45

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

6 4 10

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

71 18 89

79.8% 20.2% 100.0%

12 5 17

70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

3 2 5

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25 10 35

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

40 18 58

69.0% 31.0% 100.0%

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

C or D Felonies (N=37)

(N=104)

B Felonies

12.5

Median Number of Appearances

14.5 13.5

Remand

(N=144)

All Charges

9.5

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

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2002 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:

-89-

-90-

Table 6d Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

17.0

10.0

13.5

24.0

4.0

104

11.0

13 5 1 8

11.0 9.0 10.0 8.5

7 3 1 7

15.5 26.0 11.0 11.0

11 3 3 10

34.0 29.0 21.0 21.5

2 13 3 14

3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0

33 24 8 39

14.0 9.0 12.5 9.0

11.0

8.0

20.0

5.0

11.0

2 1 0 2

13.5 11.0 9.5

2 2 0 1

6.5 12.0 25.0

6 1 3 6

20.5 24.0 15.0 20.0

3 5 0 3

4.0 5.0 7.0

13 9 3 12

11.0 7.0 15.0 14.5

10.5

12.0

21.5

4.0

144

11.0

15 6 1 10

11.0 10.0 10.0 9.0

9 5 1 8

9.0 17.0 11.0 13.0

17 4 6 19

27.0 26.5 18.0 21.0

5 18 3 17

4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0

46 33 11 54

13.5 9.0 15.0 9.5

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

370

C or D Felonies (N=37)

125

182.5

(N=104)

175

286

413

B Felonies

164

209

Median Number of Days

361

Remand

(N=144)

All Charges

162

288

183

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only three 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

2002 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:

-91-

-92-

Table 6e Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

328.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

328.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

328.0

225.0

322.0

588.0

46.5

104

231.0

13 5 1 8

342.0 143.0 187.0 162.5

7 3 1 7

364.0 719.0 92.0 238.0

11 3 3 10

833.0 469.0 368.0 565.0

2 13 3 14

63.0 111.0 157.0 34.0

33 24 8 39

370.0 164.0 209.0 175.0

261.0

125.0

471.5

126.0

261.0

2 1 0 2

295.0 330.0 172.0

2 2 0 1

115.0 123.5 189.0

6 1 3 6

379.0 574.0 413.0 650.5

3 5 0 3

126.0 73.0 142.0

13 9 3 12

286.0 125.0 413.0 182.5

227.5

238.0

540.5

56.0

144

234.5

15 6 1 10

329.0 186.5 187.0 171.5

9 5 1 8

278.0 345.0 92.0 213.5

17 4 6 19

595.0 521.5 390.5 542.0

5 18 3 17

84.0 97.5 157.0 34.0

46 33 11 54

361.0 162.0 288.0 183.0

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=104)

16.5

B Felonies

18.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=147)

All Charges

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

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2002 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:

-93-

-94-

Table 6f Median Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

0 0

3 0

17.0 -

0 0

3 0

17.0 -

10.0

13.5

24.0

4.0

104

11.0

13 14

10.0 11.0

15 3

15.0 8.0

27 0

24.0 -

5 27

11.0 4.0

60 44

18.5 5.0

11.0

8.0

20.0

7.0

11.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

3 3

11.0 11.0

3 2

17.0 6.0

15 1

21.0 7.0

5 8

7.0 3.5

26 14

16.5 6.0

ALL CHARGES:

11.0

12.0

21.5

4.0

147

11.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

16 17

10.0 11.0

18 5

16.0 7.0

45 1

22.0 7.0

10 35

7.0 4.0

89 58

17.0 5.0

A FELONIES: 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)

124

(N=104)

291

B Felonies

364

Median Number of Days

111

(N=147)

All Charges

335

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

100

200

300

400

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

2002 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:

-95-

-96-

Table 6g Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2002 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

328.0

0 0

3 0

328.0 -

0 0

3 0

328.0 -

225.0

322.0

588.0

46.5

104

231.0

13 14

224.0 227.5

15 3

364.0 184.0

27 0

588.0 -

5 27

166.0 42.0

60 44

364.0 99.0

235.0

125.0

471.5

134.0

201.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

3 3

261.0 209.0

3 2

154.0 99.0

15 1

530.0 133.0

5 8

142.0 67.5

26 14

291.0 124.0

ALL CHARGES:

225.0

238.0

540.5

62.0

147

231.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

16 17

227.5 225.0

18 5

332.0 122.0

45 1

542.0 133.0

10 35

154.0 47.0

89 58

335.0 111.0

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.

-97Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 2002) (Second half of FY 2002 through First half of FY 2003; January - December, 2002)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 195 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, an increase of 27 percent from the previous reporting period, which followed a 25 percent decrease. As shown in Exhibit 7A, six percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2002, the same proportion as in the previous reporting period but far more than in 2000 (1%). The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2002 for juveniles arraigned in 2002 and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2002. 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. Half 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 Brooklyn, an FTA rate of eight percent in that borough. The FTA rate was higher in Manhattan (10%) where three of the 29 juveniles who were released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment missed a scheduled court appearance, and in Queens (10%) where one of the ten juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment failed to appear as scheduled. The FTA rate was lower in the Bronx (4%) where two juveniles missed a scheduled appearance in the Criminal Court. None of the juveniles released on bail at arraignment failed to appear in the lower court, as in the past several reporting periods, but these findings should be viewed cautiously since so few defendants secure release on bail at Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 7B presents FTA rates in Supreme Court for juveniles who were released at the first Supreme Court appearance and Table 7b presents the Supreme Court FTA data by release status and borough. The FTA rate in Supreme Court (13%)18 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it has been in previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (22%, compared to 8% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (6%, 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 is similar to the rate reported for 2001 (12%), 2000 (13%), and 1999 (13%). 17

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.

-98-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2002 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 93.8%

Yes 6.2%

(N=195)

53.3%

112

8 202

210

0 3

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.4%

3 123

126

0 6

1 66

0 7

2 44

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8%

1.5% 98.5% 100.0%

53.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.6%

4.3% 95.7% 100.0%

36.5%

3 103

106

0 2

0 71

0 4

3 26

2.8% 97.2% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

67.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.8%

10.3% 89.7% 100.0%

27.4%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

2 74

0 1

1 60

0 4

1 9

2.6% 97.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.3%

1.6% 98.4% 100.0%

80.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

13.2%

Queens %

16 502

518

0 12

4 307

311

0 35

12 148

160

3.1% 96.9% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3%

1.3% 98.7% 100.0%

60.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.8%

7.5% 92.5% 100.0%

30.9%

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

1.8% 98.2% 100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 20

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

2 110

9.5%

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

8.0% 92.0% 100.0%

35.7%

6 69

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 2002 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

Table 7a

-99-

-100-

Exhibit 7B Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court For Defendants Released at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 2002 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 13.3%

No 86.7%

(N=90)

1 14

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

6 42

1 2

1 7

1 12

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

6.3%

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

16.7%

7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

27.1%

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

31.3%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

18.8%

7 35

0 0

0 5

3 10

0 7

4 13

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.9%

23.1% 76.9% 100.0%

31.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16.7%

23.5% 76.5% 100.0%

40.5%

16 42

0 1

8 19

3 8

2 7

3 7

27.6% 72.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.7%

29.6% 70.4% 100.0%

46.6%

27.3% 72.7% 100.0%

19.0%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

15.5%

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

17.2%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

2 40

2 3 5

0 9

0 5

0 19

0 4

4.8% 95.2% 100.0%

100.0%

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

11.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

45.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

9.5%

Queens N %

31 159

190

3 6

9 40

7 35

3 47

9 31

16.3% 83.7% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

4.7%

18.4% 81.6% 100.0%

25.8%

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

22.1%

6.0% 94.0% 100.0%

26.3%

22.5% 77.5% 100.0%

21.1%

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 7

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 2002 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-101-

-102-

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.