Juveniles Report 03 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 2003

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2004

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 2003

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

November 2004

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

ÂŠ 2004 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

-iii-

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

-iv-

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 53 54

65 66 67 68 69

-v-

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

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

-vi-

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 99 100 101 102

APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES........................................................................ 103

INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report. Serious crime committed by young offenders has attracted considerable attention and has engendered public concern regarding the criminal justice system's response to these young offenders. Foreshadowing recent national concern, New York State passed the Juvenile Offender (JO) Law as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978. This legislation created, for New York, a "waiver-down" rather than a "waiver-up" system typical in most states. In New York, when a fourteenor fifteen-year-old juvenile is arrested for a serious offense, such as first degree assault or first degree robbery (or a thirteen-year-old is arrested for second degree murder), the case is filed directly in the adult court. By contrast, in the "waiver-up" system usually found, jurisdiction for juveniles arrested for serious offenses begins in the juvenile court, and the case may then be transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate. During recent years, the number of youths in detention, by the authority of the adult or juvenile courts, has been increasing. This strains the resources of both juvenile justice professionals responsible for handling these offenders in New York City and of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) which is in charge of juvenile pretrial detention. Concern regarding detention capacity heightened because of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to replace Spofford, a large but outmoded juvenile detention facility, with two new detention facilities with a combined capacity less than Spofford's. Overcrowding in the new facilities led to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to renovate and reopen Spofford, 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 2003 (the second half of fiscal year 2003 and the first half of fiscal year 2004). The report describes selected characteristics of those arrested and also provides information on court activity on serious cases with juvenile defendants in the Criminal (lower) and Supreme (upper) Court during the reporting period. The report provides a picture of the numbers and types of arrests of juveniles for serious crimes which entered the adult criminal justice system, and describes disposition and release-status decisions in such cases. This information can provide policy-makers with an understanding of the types of offenses attributed to juveniles and of the routine system responses. This can aid in the development of potential intervention strategies, either for limiting pretrial detention or for alternative sanctioning. This report is prepared by CJA, a not-for-profit corporation, contracting with the City of New York for the following purposes: 1) To decrease the number of days spent in detention by defendants who could be safely released to the community;

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

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

CJA does not ordinarily interview defendants who are arrested solely on bench warrants, or charged with non-criminal offenses within the Administrative Code or the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendants arraigned in the hospital without going through a police central booking facility are not interviewed. In Manhattan, CJA does not interview defendants arrested solely on charges of prostitution except for those processed through the Midtown Community Court.

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.

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

-3Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

At any point during the adult criminal court process, a case may either be referred or removed to Family Court. A referral is an informal transfer after the adult court concludes its case in some manner, such as a dismissal, while a removal is a judicial transfer of a proceeding pending in Criminal or Supreme Court. At the pre-filing stage, only referrals can occur, while post-filing either referrals or removals may happen. A removal allows the case to be prosecuted as a designated felony in Family Court. The District Attorney has the option to retain jurisdiction and prosecute the case in Family Court; if this option is not exercised, Corporation Counsel will prosecute. Further, most referrals, even those concluded through a dismissal of the JO case in either Criminal or Supreme Court, are also reviewed by Corporation Counsel for possible filing of non-JO charges in the Family Court. If the case is not sent to Family Court prior to indictment, it will be given to the Grand Jury for review. If an indictment is handed down, the case is then transferred to Supreme Court, where it is filed in Supreme Court. For those B-, C- or D-felony JO charges where the prosecuting DA agrees, the defendant may consent to waive indictment and be prosecuted by a superior court information (SCI). The functional equivalent of an indictment, this instrument is usually used to expedite felony pleas. Unless the case is referred or removed in Supreme Court post-indictment, both disposition and sentencing usually occur there. An offender convicted of an eligible JO offense may be adjudicated as a Youthful Offender (YO), and receive a sentence authorized for an E-felony conviction. If not adjudicated a YO, an offender convicted of a JO offense must be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05, which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required. In response to concern regarding JOs, the city has developed specialized courtrooms in Supreme Court in each borough except Staten Island called Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts) for the handling and disposition of some JO cases. JO cases may be assigned to these parts after indictment, either for Supreme Court arraignment or subsequent to arraignment. Exceptions to the processing in JO parts may include high publicity cases or those with adult codefendants. The court specialization allows for those involved to develop an expertise in the processing of JO cases. Design of the Report. This report provides descriptive information, such as charge type, borough of arrest, or gender, for processing activity that occurred during the reporting period at different decision points in the adult court process. It begins with arrests, and then provides information about the initial and disposition hearing, for both courts; for Supreme Court, sentence information is also included. The report covers the 2003 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. It is divided into seven sections: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

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

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

6) Supreme Court sentence; 7) Failure-to-appear rates. Any case which had a specific action (arrest, arraignment, disposition, or sentence) during the reporting period is counted in the appropriate section. If a case had two or more actions, it is counted multiple times. For example, if a defendant was arrested and arraigned in Criminal Court during the reporting period, that case would be counted in both the arrest and Criminal Court arraignment sections. Thus, the report does not present a picture of only those defendants who entered the system during a reporting period, and instead reflects all cases on which any specific action, such as arraignment, or disposition, was taken. The information is presented first with graphic displays called "Exhibits," which use percentages, and then in tables which contain whatever detailed numbers and percentages relate to a specific exhibit. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, Exhibit 2B presents arraignment release status by borough, while Table 2b provides arraignment released status by affidavit charge severity, 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 74 arrests during this reporting period), Staten Island information is not included in the information presented after the Arrest Section. Thus, â&#x20AC;&#x153;citywideâ&#x20AC;? totals exclude the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period. Numbers for the subsequent reporting periods will be reviewed, and the information may be included in later time periods. Staten Island information is available on request. Further, the number of cases with female defendants is also too low to be meaningful past the Criminal Court arraignment decision point. That is, although the number of cases for which females were arrested during the reporting period was 211, only 66 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 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, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

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 1672 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. More than one of every three of these arrests were filed in adult court —1057 cases (63%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, six of every ten were not transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (90%). 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 released on recognizance or on bail, but also a decrease in the overall numbers of cases processed at each point.

5 However, for those cases transferred either to Family Court or elsewhere, there will be a release status, because the case is still open. 6

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

-6Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Arrests

1672

1057 (63%)

615 (37%)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

620

3 (0%)

617 (100%)

303 (49%)7

CC Dispositions

553

319 (58%)

234 (42%)

data not available

SC 1st Appearances

223

7 (3%)

216 (97%)

120 (58%)

SC Dispositions

229

23 (10%)

206 (90%)

121 (61%)

311 (51%) data not available

87 (42%)

77 (39%)

The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 614 cases, not 620, because release status is missing for the docket in four juvenile cases, and was not relevant for the two dockets that were dismissed.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 207 cases, not 223, because release status data is missing for thirteen cases and was not relevant for the two cases that were dismissed nor for the case in which the bench warrant was ordered at the first scheduled appearance in the Supreme Court.

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 198, not 229, 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, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1672 arrests for JO offenses in 2003. This is higher than the 1556 arrests reported in 2002 and comparable to the 1686 arrests reported in 2001, but much lower than the peak volume of 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 three quarters of the juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2003, only four of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first degree kidnapping, or first degree arson) compared to eight arrests in 2001 and 2002 and 19 in 2000. After first and second degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was burglary in the second degree. This charge accounted for about six 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, each of the 45 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 87 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 have been included in this report as a JO arrest. These two weapon offenses account for eight percent of the arrests for JO offenses in 2003. As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, type of arrest offense 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 ranged from 52 percent in the Bronx to 59 percent in Manhattan. Arrests for second degree burglary account for roughly one of every ten JO arrests in Staten Island and Queens, compared to almost six percent in Brooklyn, and only four percent in the Bronx and Manhattan (Table 1a). The two weapon charges for which juveniles are eligible for prosecution in the adult court account for nine percent of JO arrests in Brooklyn and the Bronx, seven percent in Queens and Staten Island, and only five percent in Manhattan. 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 2003. Exhibit 1B shows that six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varies little by borough, ranging between 59 and 65 percent across the four largest boroughs. The JO arrests reported in 2003 were as likely to involve fifteen-year-olds as were those reported in 2002 (61% in both years, up from 58% in 2001). 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. Also, the fifteen-year-olds account for a

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

higher percentage of cases with the more severe charges than of cases with lesser charges: 65 percent of the juveniles in B-felony arrests but only 60 percent of those in Cor D-felony arrests were fifteen years old at arrest. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (87%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of arrestees who were male are small, with a spread of six 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, ten percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to fourteen percent of the C- or Dfelony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, nearly two thirds of the 2003 JO arrests were not docketed.10 The proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2003 (37%) is on the higher end of the range filed in 1998 through 2002 (28% to 38%). 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: 2003 JO Arrests

Burglary 1 0.2% Burglary 2 6.3%

Other* 12.6%

Murder 2 0.2%

Robbery 1 19.9%

Assault 1 4.4%

Att. Murder 2 1.3%

Robbery 2 55.1%

(N=1,672)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=648)

Percentage

1.9 0.3

20.5

55.1

3.7

18.5

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=257)

22.2

59.1

3.9

14.8

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=348)

1.1 0.3

18.1

52.0

8.0

20.4

Att. Murder 2

2003 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=345)

1.7 0.3

18.3

55.7

2.9

21.2

Assault 1

Staten Is. (N=74)

Other*

23.0

54.1

2.7

20.3

-10-

648

100.0%

52.0% 4.3% 3.4% 5.5%

100.0%

348

65.2%

1.1% 18.1% 8.0% 0.0% 2.9% 3.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

34.5%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3%

181 15 12 19

227

4 63 28 0 10 12 2 1 0 0

120

1 0 0

Bronx N %

257

152 10 6 7

175

0 57 10 0 4 8 0 0 3 0

0 0 0

100.0%

59.1% 3.9% 2.3% 2.7%

68.1%

0.0% 22.2% 3.9% 0.0% 1.6% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

31.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

345

192 35 11 13

251

6 63 10 0 6 5 0 2 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

55.7% 10.1% 3.2% 3.8%

72.8%

1.7% 18.3% 2.9% 0.0% 1.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%

27.0%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3%

Queens N %

40 8 0 5

0 17 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

22 333 74 0 30 39 2 4 4 0

508

4 0 0

922 106 45 87

100.0% 1672

54.1% 10.8% 0.0% 6.8%

100.0%

55.1% 6.3% 2.7% 5.2%

69.4%

1.3% 19.9% 4.4% 0.0% 1.8% 2.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%

30.4%

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0.2%

CITYWIDE N %

71.6% 1160

0.0% 23.0% 2.7% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28.4%

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

357 38 16 43

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

55.1% 5.9% 2.5% 6.6%

70.1%

454

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

29.6%

192 1.9% 20.5% 3.7% 0.0% 1.4% 2.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3%

2 0 0

Brooklyn % N

12 133 24 0 9 13 0 1 0 0

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

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arrest Charge by Borough for 2003 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=648)

Percentage

40.6

59.4

Bronx (N=348)

37.6

62.4

Manhattan (N=257)

38.9

61.1

Queens (N=345)

Age at Arrest 14 15

2003 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

35.1

64.9

Staten Is. (N=74)

41.9

58.1

Citywide (N=1672)

38.6

61.4

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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 %

0.3%

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

192

29.6%

120

34.5%

0 68 124

0.0% 35.4% 64.6% 100.0%

0 34 86

0.0% 28.3% 71.7% 100.0%

454

70.1%

227

0 194 260

0.0% 42.7% 57.3% 100.0%

648 0 263 385

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.3%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

31.9%

27.0%

0 29 53

0.0% 35.4% 64.6% 100.0%

0 36 57

0.0% 38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

65.2%

175

68.1%

251

0 96 131

0.0% 42.3% 57.7% 100.0%

0 71 104

0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 100.0%

100.0%

348

100.0%

257

0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 100.0%

0 131 217

0.0% 37.6% 62.4% 100.0%

0 100 157

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

0.2%

0 2 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

28.4%

508

30.4%

0 10 11

0.0% 47.6% 52.4% 100.0%

0 177 331

0.0% 34.8% 65.2% 100.0%

72.8%

71.6%

1160

69.4%

0 85 166

0.0% 33.9% 66.1% 100.0%

0 21 32

0.0% 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%

0 467 693

0.0% 40.3% 59.7% 100.0%

100.0%

345

100.0%

1672

100.0%

0.0% 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

0 121 224

0.0% 35.1% 64.9% 100.0%

0 31 43

0.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0%

0 646 1026

0.0% 38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=648)

Percentage

89.0

11.0

Bronx (N=348)

84.5

15.5

Manhattan (N=257)

90.3

9.7

Queens (N=345)

Gender Males Females

2003 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

86.1

13.9

Staten Is. (N=74)

82.4

17.6

Citywide (N=1672)

87.4

12.6

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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 %

0.3%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

192

29.6%

120

34.5%

178 14

92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

108 12

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

454

70.1%

227

398 56

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

648 577 71

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.3%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

31.9%

27.0%

72 10

87.8% 12.2% 100.0%

81 12

87.1% 12.9% 100.0%

19 2

65.2%

175

68.1%

251

72.8%

185 42

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

160 15

91.4% 8.6% 100.0%

215 36

100.0%

348

100.0%

257

100.0%

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

294 54

84.5% 15.5% 100.0%

232 25

90.3% 9.7% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

0.2%

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

28.4%

508

30.4%

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

458 50

90.2% 9.8% 100.0%

71.6% 1160

69.4%

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

42 11

79.2% 1000 20.8% 160 100.0%

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

345

100.0%

100.0% 1672

100.0%

297 48

86.1% 13.9% 100.0%

61 13

82.4% 1461 17.6% 211 100.0%

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=648)

Percentage

68.2

31.8

Bronx (N=348)

57.5

42.5

Manhattan (N=257)

50.2

49.8

Queens (N=345)

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2003 JO Arrests

67.5

32.5

Staten Is. (N=74)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

71.6

28.4

Citywide (N=1672)

63.2

36.8

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.3%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

192

29.6%

120

34.5%

52 140

27.1% 72.9% 100.0%

32 88

26.7% 73.3% 100.0%

454

70.1%

227

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

389 65

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

648

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

442 206

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

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0.3%

0.2%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

31.9%

27.0%

28.4%

508

30.4%

21 61

25.6% 74.4% 100.0%

26 67

28.0% 72.0% 100.0%

5 16

23.8% 76.2% 100.0%

136 372

26.8% 73.2% 100.0%

65.2%

175

68.1%

251

72.8%

71.6% 1160

69.4%

168 59

74.0% 26.0% 100.0%

108 67

61.7% 38.3% 100.0%

207 44

82.5% 17.5% 100.0%

48 5

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

920 240

79.3% 20.7% 100.0%

100.0%

348

100.0%

257

100.0%

345

100.0%

100.0% 1672

100.0%

68.2% 31.8% 100.0%

200 148

57.5% 42.5% 100.0%

129 128

50.2% 49.8% 100.0%

233 112

67.5% 32.5% 100.0%

53 21

71.6% 1057 28.4% 615 100.0%

63.2% 36.8% 100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 62011 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, more than in 2000, 2001 or 2002 (571, 506, and 526, respectively). 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 citywide increase in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The increase was largest in Queens (51%), the only borough that showed a decrease in arraignment volume for the previous reporting period, followed by the Bronx and Manhattan (both 22%), and was tiny in Brooklyn (1%). While Brooklyn arraignment volume is still the largest across the boroughs, Brooklyn cases account for only a third of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court in 2003, compared to about four of every ten in 2001 and 2002. Manhattan continues to account for about two of every ten JO arraignments and Bronx cases again account for a quarter of the arraigned juveniles in the current reporting period. Queens JO arraignments account for 18 percent of the citywide volume of juvenile arraignments, as they did in 2001, compared to only fourteen percent in 2002. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that nearly half of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (45%), and another 36 percent were for second degree robbery. Thus, eight of every ten JO dockets in adult court had robbery affidavit charges. While the combined proportion is virtually the same as was reported for arraignments in 1996 to 2002, the proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery charges is five percentage points lower and the proportion arraigned on second degree robbery charges is five percentage points higher than in 2002. 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, 27 percent of cases for juveniles charged with a B felony at arrest were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to about eight of every ten 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. 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 City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

Charges at arraignment vary by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. The proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery varied widely, from a high of 57 percent for Queens, to 47 percent in Brooklyn, 41 percent in Manhattan and only 38 percent in the Bronx. When first and second degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences are far more narrow because the borough with the highest proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery showed the lowest proportion of juveniles charged with second degree robbery at arraignment. Together, first and second degree robbery account for nearly nine of every ten JO arraignments in Manhattan, 84 percent in Queens, nearly eight of every ten in Brooklyn but still barely 75 percent of the Bronx arraignments. The Bronx shows a particularly high proportion of dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges (almost 9%, compared to less than 5% in Brooklyn, the borough with the next highest proportion) and the highest proportion of docketed juvenile cases with assault charges (8%, compared to less than 4% in Brooklyn, again the borough with the next highest proportion). Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.12 There were very few dismissals (2) or transfers to Family Court (1) at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 45 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2003. The rate of ROR is markedly higher than the ROR rate in 2002 (31%) or in any previous period in this reporting series, which ranged from 28 to 40 percent. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is apparent in each borough, but not to the same extent. The ROR rate doubled in Manhattan, from 27 to 53 percent, increased fifteen percentage points to 51 percent in the Bronx, increased twelve percentage points to 48 percent in Brooklyn, and increased nine percentage points to 22 percent in Queens. Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail decreased somewhat in 2003, down to four percent from seven percent citywide, with a total of only 26 juveniles released on bail at arraignment in 2003. Only one percent (one juvenile) secured release on bail at arraignment in Manhattan, four percent (4 juveniles) in Queens, five percent (11 juveniles) in Brooklyn, and six percent (10 juveniles) in the Bronx. The juveniles arraigned in Queens showed higher rates of detention at arraignment (75%) than did those arraigned in other boroughs (46% in Manhattan and Brooklyn and 42% in the Bronx). Citywide, release rates vary by the severity of the affidavit charge, as can be seen in Table 2b. Defendants arraigned in cases with more serious charges were more likely to be detained. Citywide, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, is 38 percent (up from 29% in 2002), compared to 57 percent (up from 35%) in arraignments for C or D felonies. The increase in arraignment ROR rates was greater for the juveniles in the lower charge severity category (a 22 percentage point 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 City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

increase) than for those charged with B felonies (9 percentage points). 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 2003, the proportion released on ROR was highest in the Manhattan (46%, up from 23%), followed by the Bronx (44%, up from 35%), then Brooklyn (40%, up from 32%), and far lower in Queens (20%, up from 13%). The borough differences are even wider at the C- and Dfelony level because Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn ROR rates are fourteen to 22 percentage points higher for juveniles with lesser felony charges while the ROR rate for these juveniles in Queens is barely six percentage points higher than for those arraigned on B-felony charges. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 56 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 44 percent of males. 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 2003, more than eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, compared to 76 percent in 2002. 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 nearly 95 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the defendant from eligibility for either a positive or negative recommendation. These considerations include the “Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID,” “No NYSID Available,” “Murder Charge” (125.25 or 110-125.25) or “Interview Incomplete.” Only the murder charge exclusion was exercised in any of the four largest boroughs in 2003. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then 98 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2003 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2003 were far more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. Nearly half of the juveniles in the positive recommendation category, compared to little more than one third of those who were not recommended, were ROR’d at arraignment. However, very few

-21Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

arraigned juveniles were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment. In 2003, only 16 juveniles were not recommended on this basis, compared to 27 juveniles in 2002, 19 juveniles in 2001 and 26 in 2000.

-22-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2003 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 45.3%

Murder 2 0.3% Other* 10.0%

Att. Murder 2 4.2%

Assault 1 4.5%

Robbery 2 35.6%

(N=620)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=212)

Percentage

5.7 0.5

47.2

32.1

3.8

10.8

Murder 2

0.7

41.0

47.0

3.0

8.2

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=134) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

3.8 0.6

37.7

37.1

8.2

12.6

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=159)

Att. Murder 2

2003 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=115)

Other*

7.0

6.1

57.4

27.0

2.6

-23-

212

100.0%

59 1 0 4

6 60 13 0 7 7 0 0 1 0

1 0 0

159

100.0%

37.1% 0.6% 0.0% 2.5%

40.3%

3.8% 37.7% 8.2% 0.0% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

59.1%

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

0.6%

134

63 2 1 2

1 55 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0 0 0

100.0%

47.0% 1.5% 0.7% 1.5%

50.7%

0.7% 41.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0%

49.3%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

31 2 1 1

7 66 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

27.0% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9%

30.4%

6.1% 57.4% 2.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

69.6%

0.0%

Queens %

115

2 0 0

620

221 6 4 14

245

26 281 28 0 14 15 0 2 7 0

100.0%

35.6% 1.0% 0.6% 2.3%

39.5%

4.2% 45.3% 4.5% 0.0% 2.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.0%

60.2%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3%

CITYWIDE %

373

TOTAL

68 1 2 7

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

32.1% 0.5% 0.9% 3.3%

36.8%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

62.7%

133 5.7% 47.2% 3.8% 0.0% 1.9% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

12 100 8 0 4 6 0 0 3 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 2003 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-24-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=211)

Percentage

48.3

5.2

46.0

0.5

ROR

Bronx (N=158)

51.3

6.3

37.3

5.1

Manhattan (N=130)

53.1

0.8

45.4

0.8

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2003 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=115)

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

21.7

3.5

74.8

Citywide (N=614)

45.1

4.2

49.0

1.6

-25-

-26-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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%

0.6%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

132

62.6%

59.5%

50.0%

53 10 68 1

40.2% 7.6% 51.5% 0.8% 100.0%

41 7 40 6

43.6% 7.4% 42.6% 6.4% 100.0%

30 1 33 1

46.2% 1.5% 50.8% 1.5% 100.0%

37.0%

39.9%

49 1 28 0

62.8% 1.3% 35.9% 0.0% 100.0%

40 3 19 1

63.5% 4.8% 30.2% 1.6% 100.0%

211

100.0%

158

102 11 97 1

48.3% 5.2% 46.0% 0.5% 100.0%

81 10 59 8

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.3%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

69.6%

371

60.4%

16 3 61 0

20.0% 3.8% 76.3% 0.0% 100.0%

140 21 202 8

37.7% 5.7% 54.4% 2.2% 100.0%

50.0%

30.4%

241

39.3%

39 0 26 0

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 1 25 0

25.7% 2.9% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

137 5 98 1

56.8% 2.1% 40.7% 0.4% 100.0%

100.0%

130

100.0%

115

100.0%

614

100.0%

51.3% 6.3% 37.3% 5.1% 100.0%

69 1 59 1

53.1% 0.8% 45.4% 0.8% 100.0%

25 4 86 0

21.7% 3.5% 74.8% 0.0% 100.0%

277 26 301 10

45.1% 4.2% 49.0% 1.6% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 6 arraignments: 2 dismissals, 1 transfer to Family Court and 3 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Made 4.6%

(N=66)

Bail Set/Not Made 40.9%

(N=548)

Remand 1.5%

Females

Remand 1.5%

ROR 56.1%

Males

Bail Set/Not Made 50.1%

ROR 43.8%

2003 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Made 1.5%

-27-

102 11 97 1

211

10 0 6 0

92 11 91 1

195

48.3% 5.2% 46.0% 0.5% 100.0%

100.0%

62.5% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

7.6%

47.2% 5.6% 46.7% 0.5% 100.0%

92.4%

Brooklyn % N

81 10 59 8

158

20 1 4 1

61 9 55 7

51.3% 6.3% 37.3% 5.1% 100.0%

100.0%

76.9% 3.8% 15.4% 3.8% 100.0%

16.5%

46.2% 6.8% 41.7% 5.3% 100.0%

69 1 60 0

130

7 0 5 0

62 1 55 0

118

53.1% 0.8% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

58.3% 0.0% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

9.2%

52.5% 0.8% 46.6% 0.0% 100.0%

90.8%

25 4 86 0

115

0 0 12 0

25 4 74 0

103

83.5%

132

21.7% 3.5% 74.8% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10.4%

24.3% 3.9% 71.8% 0.0% 100.0%

89.6%

Queens %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

277 26 302 9

614

37 1 27 1

240 25 275 8

548

* Excludes 6 arraignments: 2 dismissals, 1 transfer to Family Court and 3 for which arraignment release status was not available

45.1% 4.2% 49.2% 1.5% 100.0%

100.0%

56.1% 1.5% 40.9% 1.5% 100.0%

10.7%

43.8% 4.6% 50.2% 1.5% 100.0%

89.3%

CITYWIDE N %

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

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

TOTAL*

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

FEMALES:

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

MALES:

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2003 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-28-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=211)

Percentage

77.3

2.8 3.8

16.1

Bronx (N=158)

86.2

1.5

84.8

12.3

10.1 1.9 3.2

Manhattan (N=130)

Queens (N=115)

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

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2003 JO Arraignments

86.1

2.6 0.9

10.4

Citywide (N=614)

82.7

2.0 2.6

12.7

-29-

-30-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2003 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

163

77.3%

134

84.8%

112

86.2%

86.1%

508

82.7%

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

83 7 72 1

50.9% 4.3% 44.2% 0.6% 100.0%

73 8 47 6

54.5% 6.0% 35.1% 4.5% 100.0%

59 1 52 0

52.7% 0.9% 46.4% 0.0% 100.0%

24 3 72 0

24.2% 3.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0%

239 19 243 7

47.0% 3.7% 47.8% 1.4% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

3.8%

3.2%

1.5%

0.9%

2.6%

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

4 0 4 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 4 0

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 10 0

37.5% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0 0 0 0

2.8%

1.9%

0 1 5 0

0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

16.1%

10.1%

15 3 16 0

44.1% 8.8% 47.1% 0.0% 100.0%

6 2 6 2

37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0%

211

100.0%

158

102 11 97 1

48.3% 5.2% 46.0% 0.5% 100.0%

81 10 59 8

0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0

2.6%

2.0%

0 0 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 10 0

8.3% 8.3% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

12.3%

10.4%

12.7%

9 0 7 0

56.3% 0.0% 43.8% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 10 0

8.3% 8.3% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

31 6 39 2

39.7% 7.7% 50.0% 2.6% 100.0%

100.0%

130

100.0%

115

100.0%

614

100.0%

51.3% 6.3% 37.3% 5.1% 100.0%

69 1 60 0

53.1% 0.8% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0%

25 4 86 0

21.7% 3.5% 74.8% 0.0% 100.0%

277 26 302 9

45.1% 4.2% 49.2% 1.5% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 6 arraignments: 2 dismissals, 1 transfer to Family Court and 3 for which arraignment release status was not available

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 553 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, slightly more than the 521 dockets disposed in 2002, or the 494 dockets in 2001. This is still fewer than the 587 dockets disposed in 2000 or the 871 dockets disposed in 1999. Again, the citywide increase is not reflected equally in each of the boroughs. There were 42 more dockets disposed in Queens and 24 more in the Bronx, but four fewer in Manhattan and 30 fewer in Brooklyn. 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; about eight of every ten are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 42 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, higher than the rate in 2002 (37%) which was the lowest in the reporting series. Again, there are wide borough differences, with Queens (62%), followed by Manhattan (54%), showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 42% in the Bronx and 23% in Brooklyn). Further, the five percentage point increase citywide in the proportion of disposed JO dockets transferred to the upper court is matched by a similar decrease (to 26%) in the proportion of these cases citywide that were dismissed, although this did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. Here, again, the citywide figure masks tremendous range in the dismissal rate for JO dockets across the boroughs. The rate of dismissal in Criminal Court for JO dockets ranged from only one of every ten disposed in Queens and two of every ten in Brooklyn, to 35 percent in the Bronx and four of every ten in Manhattan. The wide 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 (6%) while the transfer rates were higher in the Bronx (22%), Queens (27%) and much higher in Brooklyn (59%). Citywide, about a third of all JO cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the reporting period were transferred to Family Court, similar to the proportions in previous reporting periods. Charge relates strongly to the likelihood the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. As presented in Exhibit 3B.2 (with the full display provided in Table 3b), the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than disposition in Criminal Court, either through a dismissal or by transfer to Family Court, is higher when the charge is more severe. Half of the B-felony dockets were transferred to Supreme Court, as compared to three of every ten C- or D-felony dockets. The strong 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 City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is evident in each borough. Release status at the conclusion of lower court processing for cases transferred either to Family or Supreme Court is not presented in this report in light of considerations of data quality and availability. Available data sources do not consistently note the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s release status, perhaps in part because the defendant is not always present in court when the Grand Jury outcomes are recorded. Finally, Exhibits 3C and 3D present the median number of appearances and days, respectively, between Criminal Court arraignment and disposition separately for the three charge-severity categories. 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 2003 for JO cases was five, two appearances longer than in previous reporting periods. This citywide increase seems to reflect changes in the borough composition of cases disposed in the lower court. Examination of length of case by borough shows little difference between 2002 and 2003. The median remained at three appearances in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, remained at five in the Bronx, and decreased back to five (from 6) in Queens. As discussed earlier in this section, the volume of cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period increased markedly from 2002 in both Queens and the Bronx, the two boroughs that show a median of five appearances in lower court, and decreased in both Manhattan and Brooklyn, the two boroughs that show a median of three appearances. While the median number of appearances in each borough were similar in 2003 and 2002, the median figures were higher in 2003 than in 2002 for three of the four release status categories. The median number of appearances was the same (3) for cases where the juvenile was held on bail at arraignment, but increased from three to five appearances for juveniles who were released on recognizance, and for the few who were remanded with no bail set and increased from four to five for the small number who were released on bail at arraignment. Here again, however, it seems that the shift in the borough composition of the citywide cases is likely to account for the much of the change. Specifically, in both 2002 and 2003, Brooklyn showed a median of only three appearances to disposition in Criminal Court for cases where the juvenile was released on recognizance at arraignment. In 2002, however, Brooklyn ROR cases comprised almost half of comparable JO cases citywide, but comprised little more than a third of these cases in 2003. The citywide median number of appearances to disposition for JO cases where the defendant is released on recognizance reflected the Brooklyn median in 2002 and reflects the median in the other boroughs in 2003. Citywide, length of case, in terms of number of appearances, was longer for JO cases with B-felony charges (5 appearances) than for those C- or D-felony charges. The median length of case was two appearances longer in 2003 than in 2002, again reflecting changes in the relative contribution of the boroughs to the citywide data. The median number of days in Criminal Court was nearly three weeks citywide, almost a week longer than in the previous periods. There are, however, wide borough differences (Table 3d). The median number of days in Criminal Court was shortest in Brooklyn (12, down from 13 in 2002), followed by the Bronx (about 20, up from 10 in

-33Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

2002), higher in Manhattan (25, up from 11 in 2002) and highest in Queens (49, down from 58). Some of the borough variation and some of the differences since the last reporting period 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. In 2003, the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court for disposed JO dockets where the juvenile secured release on recognizance (33 days) or on bail (38 days) at arraignment was about three times longer than the number of days elapsed where the juvenile was held on bail (12 days) or remanded with no bail set (10 days) at arraignment. 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 and Manhattan, for example, a median of five days elapse in lower court for juveniles who are detained on bail at arraignment, compared to eleven days in the Bronx and nearly seven weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, a median of about three weeks elapses from arraignment to disposition in Brooklyn, six weeks in the Bronx, and two months or more in Queens and 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 Bfelony cases (21 days, compared to 20 days). This is characteristic of the pattern of length of case by charge severity in Manhattan (25 days for the B-felony category and 26 for the C- or D-felony category) and Queens (49 days, compared to 51 days). In Brooklyn (9 days versus 17 days) and the Bronx (20 days versus 27) though, it took about a week longer for cases in the less severe charge category to reach disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=184)

Percentage

6.5 0.5

43.5

32.1

4.9

12.5

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=113)

0.9 0.9

38.9

46.0

4.4

8.8

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=147)

2.7 0.7

38.1

36.7

7.5

14.3

Att. Murder 2

Queens (N=109)

3.7

56.0

28.4

2.8

9.2

Assault 1

2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=553)

Other*

3.8 0.5

43.6

35.4

5.1

11.6

-34-

184

100.0%

54 1 0 3

4 56 11 0 8 8 0 0 1 0

1 0 0

147

36.7% 0.7% 0.0% 2.0%

39.5%

2.7% 38.1% 7.5% 0.0% 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

59.9%

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0.7%

113

52 2 1 1

1 44 5 0 2 2 0 1 1 0

1 0 0

100.0%

46.0% 1.8% 0.9% 0.9%

49.6%

0.9% 38.9% 4.4% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

49.6%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.9%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0%

Bronx

31 2 1 1

4 61 3 0 2 0 0 2 2 0

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

28.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.9%

32.1%

3.7% 56.0% 2.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0%

67.9%

Queens %

109

3 0 0

553

196 6 4 12

218

21 241 28 0 15 16 0 3 8 0

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

100.0%

35.4% 1.1% 0.7% 2.2%

39.4%

3.8% 43.6% 5.1% 0.0% 2.7% 2.9% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4% 0.0%

60.0%

CITYWIDE %

332

TOTAL

59 1 2 7

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

32.1% 0.5% 1.1% 3.8%

37.5%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

62.0%

114 6.5% 43.5% 4.9% 0.0% 1.6% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

12 80 9 0 3 6 0 0 4 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 2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-35-

[553]

100%

Citywide

[109]

Queens

[113]

Manhattan

[147]

Bronx

[184]

Brooklyn

(32.0)

(22.4)

(26.6)

50%

(6.2)

25%

50%

(42.3)

(42.2)

75%

(62.4)

(54.0)

Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(23.4)

Transfers To FC

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

(11.0)

(25.7)

(39.8)

(35.4)

(17.9)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(58.7)

Dismissals

2003 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%

26.5%

(N=332)

24.1%

B Felonies

49.4%

(N=3)

100.0%

Dismissals

A Felonies

Percent

Transfers to SC

28.4%

40.8%

(N=218)

C or D Felonies

30.7%

Transfers to FC

2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

25.7%

32.0%

(N=553)

All Charges

42.3%

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 2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

0.5%

0.7%

0.9%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

114

62.0%

59.9%

49.6%

25 37 52 0

21.9% 32.5% 45.6% 0.0% 100.0%

30 44 14 0

34.1% 50.0% 15.9% 0.0% 100.0%

18 34 4 0

32.1% 60.7% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0%

37.5%

39.5%

8 5 56 0

11.6% 7.2% 81.2% 0.0% 100.0%

22 17 19 0

37.9% 29.3% 32.8% 0.0% 100.0%

184

100.0%

147

33 43 108 0

17.9% 23.4% 58.7% 0.0% 100.0%

52 62 33 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.5%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67.9%

332

60.0%

7 49 18 0

9.5% 66.2% 24.3% 0.0% 100.0%

80 164 88 0

24.1% 49.4% 26.5% 0.0% 100.0%

49.6%

32.1%

218

39.4%

27 26 3 0

48.2% 46.4% 5.4% 0.0% 100.0%

5 19 11 0

14.3% 54.3% 31.4% 0.0% 100.0%

62 67 89 0

28.4% 30.7% 40.8% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

113

100.0%

109

100.0%

553

100.0%

35.4% 42.2% 22.4% 0.0% 100.0%

45 61 7 0

39.8% 54.0% 6.2% 0.0% 100.0%

12 68 29 0

11.0% 62.4% 26.6% 0.0% 100.0%

142 234 177 0

25.7% 42.3% 32.0% 0.0% 100.0%

(N=2)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

(N=333)

B Felonies

Remand

(N=215)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=550)

All Charges

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 2003 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 -

0 0 0 1

7.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1

3.0 7.0

113

3.0

5.0

5.5

333

5.0

40 8 64 1

5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

34 8 40 6

5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0

25 1 30 0

4.0 7.0 5.0 -

16 3 57 0

4.0 9.0 6.0 -

115 20 191 7

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

3.0

5.0

215

3.0

41 1 27 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

32 3 21 1

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

31 0 22 0

5.0 3.0 -

8 1 27 0

6.0 7.0 5.0 -

112 5 97 1

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

183

3.0

146

5.0

109

3.0

112

5.0

550

5.0

81 9 92 1

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

66 11 61 8

5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0

56 1 52 0

4.5 7.0 3.0 -

24 4 84 0

5.0 8.0 5.0 -

227 25 289 9

5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

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

(N=333)

B Felonies

24.5

(N=2)

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

8 5

Remand

(N=215)

C or D Felonies

32.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=550)

All Charges

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 2003 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

4.0

11.0

7.5

0 0 1 0

4.0 -

0 0 0 1

11.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1

4.0 11.0

113

9.0

19.5

25.0

49.0

333

20.0

40 8 64 1

25.5 19.0 5.0 5.0

34 8 40 6

45.0 45.5 11.0 14.0

25 1 30 0

58.0 10.0 13.0 -

16 3 57 0

41.5 116.0 48.0 -

115 20 191 7

34.0 24.5 13.0 8.0

17.0

27.0

26.0

51.0

215

21.0

41 1 27 0

21.0 4.0 4.0 -

32 3 21 1

34.0 41.0 10.0 10.0

31 0 22 0

93.0 5.0 -

8 1 27 0

68.5 109.0 41.0 -

112 5 97 1

32.5 41.0 5.0 10.0

183

12.0

146

19.5

109

25.0

112

49.0

550

20.0

81 9 92 1

23.0 19.0 5.0 5.0

66 11 61 8

40.5 41.0 11.0 10.5

56 1 52 0

68.5 10.0 5.0 -

24 4 84 0

58.5 112.5 46.0 -

227 25 289 9

33.0 38.0 12.0 10.0

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

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2003 (223) is higher than in 2002 (190), or 2001 (216), and close to the volume in 2000 (232), but remains much lower than in 1999 (372). The increase is not reflected in each of the boroughs. Most of the increase occurred in Queens, where volume increased by 30 cases. The Bronx shows ten more cases in 2003 than in 2002, while Brooklyn and Manhattan show small decreases in volume. 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. 2003 is the first year in which Queens accounts for more new cases in the upper court than any other borough. Nearly a third of the JO cases that reached Supreme Court were in Queens, compared to only 22 percent in the previous reporting period. Manhattan, which accounted for the largest proportion of new cases in 2002, accounts for a quarter, followed by the Bronx which accounted for the same proportion both years (23%). Brooklyn, which accounted for more of the new upper court JO cases than any other borough in previous years, accounted for only a quarter of the cases in 2002 and less than two of every ten in 2003, the smallest contribution of any borough during this reporting period. 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 nearly eight of every ten of the JO cases entering the upper court in 2003, slightly more than in the previous reporting period. Although second degree murder and attempted second degree murder charges account for less than two percent of all arrests during this reporting period, these charges account for almost five percent of cases that reached the upper court in the period. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for less than a fifth of all juvenile arrests during 2003, but for more than half 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 seven of every ten cases that reached first appearance in Supreme Court (Table 4a). 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 less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, a quarter of the defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2003 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, higher than the fifteen percent plea rate in 2002. In previous years, the plea rate at the first appearance has fluctuated from nearly a quarter in 2001, to 18 percent in 2000 and 1999, but more than a quarter in 1998 and 1997. In 2003, nearly half of the juveniles 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 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 City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

dramatic. Queens again shows the highest proportion of cases where juveniles pled guilty (62%). However, the plea rate at the first appearance in the Bronx has risen to nearly one in five JO cases. In 2002, the rate of early pleas in the Bronx had declined so that it was 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 or Manhattan (2%, in both boroughs in both reporting periods). 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 the 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%), 2002 (60%) and 2003 (62%). In the Bronx, however, the rate was far lower during those years (26%, 15%, 20%, 5% and 19%, respectively). 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 JO cases in which juveniles 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 nearly six of every ten cases, compared to about half of the cases in the previous reporting period. The largest change is the sharp increase in the proportion of cases where the juveniles were released on ROR, which increased twenty percentage points to 42 percent. In contrast, the proportion of cases where the juveniles secured release on bail decreased by twelve percentage points, to about 16 percent. Taken together, the net increase in the rate of release at the first appearance in the upper court is eight percentage points. A similar decrease is apparent in the proportion of cases where the juvenile was held, either on bail (19%) or with no bail set (23%), at this early stage of Supreme Court prosecution, with each category showing a four percentage point decrease. As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in 56 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 65 percent of those with C- or D-felony charges. However, it is largely only the proportion released on ROR and not the proportion released on bail that varied by charge severity. Juveniles who faced more severe felony charges were less likely to be released on ROR (40%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (49%). The large citywide increase in the proportion of cases with juvenile defendants released on ROR as of the first appearance in Supreme Court is not equally apparent in each borough. In Queens, the borough with the lowest rate of ROR at the first appearance in the upper court in 2002 (11%), showed the highest rate in 2003 (44%). 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 City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

The ROR rate is about as high in 2003 in both Brooklyn (43%) and Manhattan (41%), and these ROR rates more than double the rates in these boroughs in 2002. In the Bronx, however, juveniles were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d at the first Supreme Court appearance in four of every ten cases in both 2002 and 2003. The sharp increase in ROR in Queens was matched by a comparable decrease in bail-making (down to 21% from 51%). The decline in the rate of release on bail was also steep in Brooklyn (down to 16% from 33%), but was smaller in Manhattan (down five percentage points to 11%) and the Bronx (down three percentage points to 14%). Together, juveniles were released on recognizance or on bail in more than half of the cases at the first appearance in Supreme Court in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx, and at two thirds of the cases in Queens. The combined rate of release in 2003 is substantially higher than in the previous reporting period only in Manhattan where a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chance of release as of the first appearance in the upper court increased from 33 percent to 52 percent. 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 2003, as in the previous reporting period, citywide, it took a median of roughly two weeks to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d). B-felony cases took a median of fourteen days, and C- or D-felony cases took ten days to reach 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 over four weeks in Brooklyn. A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the JO 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 remained at just over a week while the median number of days remained at just over two weeks in the Bronx. 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, the average number of days from lower to upper court tends to vary 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: 2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 53.4%

Att. Murder 2 4.0%

Murder 2 0.9% Other* 9.9% Robbery 2 25.1%

Assault 1 6.7%

(N=223)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=42)

Percentage

7.1

50.0

14.3

16.7

11.9

Murder 2

3.8 1.9

48.1

21.2

9.6

15.4

Manhattan (N=57) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=52)

Att. Murder 2

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

1.8 1.8

54.4

31.6

1.8

8.8

Assault 1

2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=72)

Other*

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

4.2

58.3

29.2

2.8

5.6

-47-

100.0%

11 0 0 4

2 25 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

21.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%

28.8%

3.8% 48.1% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

69.2%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

18 0 0 1

1 31 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

33.3%

1.8% 54.4% 1.8% 0.0% 3.5% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

64.9%

1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

1.8%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0%

Bronx N

21 1 0 0

3 42 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

29.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

30.6%

4.2% 58.3% 2.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0%

69.4%

Queens %

2 0 0

223

56 1 0 6

9 119 15 1 4 8 0 2 0 0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.9%

100.0%

25.1% 0.4% 0.0% 2.7%

28.3%

4.0% 53.4% 6.7% 0.4% 1.8% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

70.9%

CITYWIDE %

158

TOTAL

6 0 0 1

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

14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

16.7%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

83.3%

35 7.1% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 21 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 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 2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-48-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=42)

Percentage

2.4

59.5

2.4 2.4

33.3

Bronx (N=52)

19.2

59.6

19.2

1.9

Manhattan (N=57)

1.8

54.4

1.8

42.1

Disposition Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Transfer To Family Court Continued

Queens (N=72)

62.5

18.1

5.6

13.9

Dismissed Bench Warrant

2003 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=223)

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

25.6

44.8

2.2 0.9

26.0

0.4

-49-

-50-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal B FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal ALL CHARGES Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Dismissed Transfer to Family Court Continued Bench Warrant TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

1.9%

1.8%

0 1 0 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 1 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.9%

0 1 0 0 1 0

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

83.3%

69.2%

64.9%

69.4%

158

70.9%

1 21 1 1 11 0

2.9% 60.0% 2.9% 2.9% 31.4% 0.0% 100.0%

6 22 0 0 7 1

16.7% 61.1% 0.0% 0.0% 19.4% 2.8% 100.0%

1 22 0 0 14 0

2.7% 59.5% 0.0% 0.0% 37.8% 0.0% 100.0%

30 12 0 0 8 0

60.0% 24.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 100.0%

38 77 1 1 40 1

24.1% 48.7% 0.6% 0.6% 25.3% 0.6% 100.0%

16.7%

28.8%

33.3%

30.6%

28.3%

0 4 0 0 3 0

0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

4 8 0 0 3 0

26.7% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 9 1 0 9 0

0.0% 47.4% 5.3% 0.0% 47.4% 0.0% 100.0%

15 1 0 4 2 0

68.2% 4.5% 0.0% 18.2% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%

19 22 1 4 17 0

30.2% 34.9% 1.6% 6.3% 27.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

223

100.0%

1 25 1 1 14 0

2.4% 59.5% 2.4% 2.4% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

10 31 0 0 10 1

19.2% 59.6% 0.0% 0.0% 19.2% 1.9% 100.0%

1 31 1 0 24 0

1.8% 54.4% 1.8% 0.0% 42.1% 0.0% 100.0%

45 13 0 4 10 0

62.5% 18.1% 0.0% 5.6% 13.9% 0.0% 100.0%

57 100 2 5 58 1

25.6% 44.8% 0.9% 2.2% 26.0% 0.4% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=37)

Percentage

43.2

16.2

27.0

13.5

40.0

14.0

16.0

30.0

Manhattan (N=54)

40.7

11.1

18.5

29.6

43.9

21.2

18.2

16.7

Remand

Queens (N=66)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=50)

ROR

2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=207)

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

42.0

15.9

19.3

22.7

-51-

-52-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2003 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 % 1

2.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

81.1%

68.0%

68.5%

72.7%

149

72.0%

12 4 10 4

40.0% 13.3% 33.3% 13.3% 100.0%

12 5 5 12

35.3% 14.7% 14.7% 35.3% 100.0%

15 4 9 9

40.5% 10.8% 24.3% 24.3% 100.0%

20 11 10 7

41.7% 22.9% 20.8% 14.6% 100.0%

59 24 34 32

39.6% 16.1% 22.8% 21.5% 100.0%

18.9%

30.0%

31.5%

27.3%

27.5%

4 2 0 1

57.1% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

8 2 3 2

53.3% 13.3% 20.0% 13.3% 100.0%

7 2 1 7

41.2% 11.8% 5.9% 41.2% 100.0%

9 3 2 4

50.0% 16.7% 11.1% 22.2% 100.0%

28 9 6 14

49.1% 15.8% 10.5% 24.6% 100.0%

100.0%

207

100.0%

16 6 10 5

43.2% 16.2% 27.0% 13.5% 100.0%

20 7 8 15

40.0% 14.0% 16.0% 30.0% 100.0%

22 6 10 16

40.7% 11.1% 18.5% 29.6% 100.0%

29 14 12 11

43.9% 21.2% 18.2% 16.7% 100.0%

87 33 40 47

42.0% 15.9% 19.3% 22.7% 100.0%

B Felonies (N=149)

(N=1)

16 13

4.5

Remand

(N=57)

C or D Felonies

4.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2003 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

(N=207)

All Charges

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

-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 2003 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

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

17.0

34.0

15.0

9.0

0.0

149

14.0

12 4 10 4

28.5 32.5 39.0 35.5

12 5 5 12

15.0 20.0 14.0 16.0

15 4 9 9

15.0 11.5 6.0 7.0

20 11 10 7

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

59 24 34 32

14.0 16.0 14.0 13.0

24.0

14.0

0.0

10.0

4 2 0 1

22.0 53.0 42.0

8 2 3 2

7.5 161.5 15.0 7.0

7 2 1 7

14.0 26.0 7.0 8.0

9 3 2 4

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

28 9 6 14

4.5 29.0 14.0 4.5

31.0

15.0

9.0

0.0

207

14.0

16 6 10 5

27.0 32.5 39.0 42.0

20 7 8 15

12.0 23.0 14.5 15.0

22 6 10 16

14.5 17.0 6.5 7.5

29 14 12 11

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

87 33 40 47

10.0 17.0 14.0 8.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 16 cases: 2 dismissals and 14 cases missing release status

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 229 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2003, a marked increase from the 154 cases in 2002, and a return to the volume in 2001 (226). Borough comparisons of the volume of cases disposed in 2002 and 2003 in the upper courts show an increase in each borough, but a larger increase in Queens (26 dispositions), the Bronx (23 dispositions) and Brooklyn (18 dispositions) than in Manhattan (8 dispositions). The result is another shift in the borough composition of the citywide dispositions of juvenile cases in the Supreme Court. Queens now accounts for the largest proportion of disposed cases (30%, up slightly from 28%). Queens is followed by Manhattan (24%), which accounted for 31% of dispositions in the previous reporting period, and Brooklyn (also 24%, which accounted for about the same proportion in 2002). Bronx cases now account for 22 percent of upper court dispositions in JO cases, only slightly lower than Manhattan and Brooklyn, despite a huge increase in volume from only 27 cases in 2002 to 50 in 2003. The charge composition of JO 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. More than half of the JO cases involve a charge of first degree robbery and first and second degree robbery together account for nearly eight of every ten dispositions. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault, which accounts for about eight percent of Supreme Court dispositions. A-felony charges account for less than one percent of disposed cases, Bfelony charges account for about seven of every ten disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges account for the remaining cases. Borough differences in the distribution of JO disposition charges are large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a), as they have been in previous reporting periods. The proportion of cases with first degree robbery charges ranges from 56 to 58 percent in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens, but only 43 percent of Brooklyn JO cases showed first degree robbery charges at disposition. The pattern of borough differences in the distribution of second degree robbery as a disposition charge is similar, with Manhattan and Queens again showing the higher percentages (30% and 32%), followed by Brooklyn (20%) and the Bronx (16%). The combined proportion of cases disposed with first or second degree robbery charges ranges from 63 percent in Brooklyn and 72 percent in the Bronx to nearly nine of every ten in Manhattan and Queens. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first degree assault, which accounts for about one in every seven cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx, but less than three percent of cases in Manhattan and Queens. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high: Overall, 90 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, compared to 93 percent in 2002 and 88 percent in 2001. The conviction rates were higher in Manhattan (93%) and Queens (91%) and slightly lower in the Bronx (from 88%) and Brooklyn (87%).

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were slightly less likely to show convictions (88%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (91%). The decrease in conviction rates occurred only at the C- or D- felony level (from to 96% in 2002 to 88% in 2003), but the conviction rate for cases disposed at this level was still lower in 2001 (84%). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in six of every ten JO cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. This is about the same as in 2002, but higher than the 53 percent release rate at dispositions in 2001 or the 48 percent release rate at dispositions in 2000. The juveniles were far more likely to secure release on recognizance (45%, up from 31% in 2002, but 39% in 2001) but less likely to be released on bail (16%, down from 28% in 2002, but 14% in 2001). As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for the defendants in JO cases to be held on bail as of disposition pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing; in less than one of every ten disposed JO 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 again extremely wide. The juveniles were released on ROR or on bail in seven of every ten cases disposed in Manhattan Supreme Court, two thirds of those disposed in Queens, nearly six of every ten in Brooklyn but less than half of the cases disposed in the Bronx. These figures are within two percentage points of the release rates in 2002 in each of the boroughs except Manhattan, which showed an increase of fourteen percentage points. However, ROR rates at dispositions in 2003 were remarkably similar across the boroughs: 40, 43, 46 and 48 percent in Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan and Queens, respectively. These ROR rates represent tremendous increases since the last reporting period in Brooklyn (up from 25%), Bronx (up from 28%) and Queens (up from 16%), but little change in Manhattan (48% in 2002). Since the ROR rates were consistent across the boroughs, the differences in release rates reflect differences in rates of release on bail. In three of the four boroughs, the rate of release on bail declined as the rate of release on ROR increased. In Manhattan, where the ROR rate did not change, the bail rate actually increased (from 9% in 2002 to 24% in 2003). When compared to the previous reporting period, release on recognizance considered alone increased and bail-making decreased 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 about two thirds, 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 (98%), followed by the Brooklyn (87%) and the Bronx (76%), but only about 22 percent in Queens. The lower proportion in Queens

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

seems to reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in non-JO Parts. As noted earlier, Queens makes greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. The 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. Conviction rates have tended to be higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts, although the rates were equal in 2002. During this reporting period, conviction rates were higher for the JO Parts (92%) than for the non-JO Parts (86%). The volume of dispositions separated by JO versus non-JO Part and by borough is too low to permit conclusions as to whether the observed citywide difference in conviction rates might be attributable to the type of court part, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. Although no single borough has a sufficient volume of cases in both the JO and non-JO Parts to permit within-borough comparison of the outcomes by type of court part, it seems likely that the convictions in the non-JO Part in Queens, and perhaps in the nonJO Part in the Bronx, despite the very small volume there, reflect the inclusion of 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 (8) was one appearance longer than in the previous reporting period and the median number of days (98) was nearly three weeks longer than in the previous year. In general, the median number of appearances and the median number of days were longer for JO cases with B-felony disposition charges (9 appearances and 112 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (6 appearances and 92 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 nine 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 increased from seven to nine in Brooklyn and from nine to eleven in Manhattan but remained the same in the Bronx (11) and Queens (1). Similarly, the median 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 120 days in Brooklyn, 168 in Manhattan, and 169 in the Bronx. The average number of days increased by a week in the Bronx and by seven weeks in Brooklyn and Manhattan but remained the same in this reporting period as in the previous year in Queens. The citywide length-of-case figures were higher in 2003 than in previous years. The JO cases took an average of over three months to be disposed in the upper court in 2003, compared to about two and a half months in 2002 but three months in both 1999 and 2001, and three and a half months 1998 and 2000.

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

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 ROR (4 appearances, 56 days) reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were released on bail (6 appearance, 116 days) or those with juveniles who were held on bail (10 appearances, 122 days) or who were remanded with no bail set (9 appearances, 139 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 and 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 every disposition-chargeseverity 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: 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 53.7%

Murder 2 0.4% Assault 1 7.9%

Att. Murder 2 2.2%

Other* 10.5% Robbery 2 25.3%

(N=229)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=54)

Percentage

5.6

42.6

20.4

14.8

16.7

Murder 2

1.8

57.1

30.4

1.8

8.9

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=56) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

2.0

56.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=50)

Att. Murder 2

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Queens (N=69)

Other*

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

1.4

58.0

31.9

2.9

5.8

-60-

100.0%

8 0 0 2

0 28 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

1 1 0

16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0%

20.0%

0.0% 56.0% 14.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%

76.0%

2.0% 2.0% 0.0%

4.0%

17 0 1 2

1 32 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

30.4% 0.0% 1.8% 3.6%

35.7%

1.8% 57.1% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

64.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0%

Bronx N

22 1 0 0

1 40 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

31.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

33.3%

1.4% 58.0% 2.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

66.7%

Queens %

1 1 0

229

58 2 2 5

5 123 18 1 7 2 0 3 1 0

0.4% 0.4% 0.0%

0.9%

100.0%

25.3% 0.9% 0.9% 2.2%

29.3%

2.2% 53.7% 7.9% 0.4% 3.1% 0.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.4% 0.0%

69.9%

CITYWIDE %

160

TOTAL

11 1 1 1

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

20.4% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

25.9%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

74.1%

40 5.6% 42.6% 14.8% 0.0% 7.4% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 23 8 0 4 2 0 0 0 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 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=54)

Percentage

87.0

13.0

Manhattan (N=56)

92.9

7.1

Queens (N=69)

91.3

8.7

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=50)

88.0

12.0

Disposition Conviction Other*

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=229)

90.0

10.0

-62-

-63-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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 % 0.0%

Queens %

4.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

74.1%

76.0%

64.3%

34 6

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

33 5

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

33 3

91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

25.9%

20.0%

13 1

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

10 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

47 7

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

44 6

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.9%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

66.7%

160

69.9%

46 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

146 14

91.3% 8.8% 100.0%

35.7%

33.3%

29.3%

19 1

95.0% 5.0% 100.0%

17 6

73.9% 26.1% 100.0%

59 8

88.1% 11.9% 100.0%

100.0%

229

100.0%

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

52 4

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

63 6

91.3% 8.7% 100.0%

206 23

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=42)

Percentage

40.5

16.7

26.2

43.2

4.5

6.8

45.5

Manhattan (N=50)

46.0

24.0

8.0

22.0

48.4

17.7

1.6

32.3

Remand

Queens (N=62)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=44)

ROR

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=198)

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

44.9

16.2

7.6

31.3

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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 % 1

2.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

76.2%

75.0%

64.0%

74.2%

143

72.2%

13 5 5 9

40.6% 15.6% 15.6% 28.1% 100.0%

13 2 1 17

39.4% 6.1% 3.0% 51.5% 100.0%

14 7 3 8

43.8% 21.9% 9.4% 25.0% 100.0%

21 8 1 16

45.7% 17.4% 2.2% 34.8% 100.0%

61 22 10 50

42.7% 15.4% 7.0% 35.0% 100.0%

23.8%

22.7%

36.0%

25.8%

27.3%

4 2 2 2

40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

6 0 2 2

60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

9 5 1 3

50.0% 27.8% 5.6% 16.7% 100.0%

9 3 0 4

56.3% 18.8% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

28 10 5 11

51.9% 18.5% 9.3% 20.4% 100.0%

100.0%

198

100.0%

17 7 7 11

40.5% 16.7% 16.7% 26.2% 100.0%

19 2 3 20

43.2% 4.5% 6.8% 45.5% 100.0%

23 12 4 11

46.0% 24.0% 8.0% 22.0% 100.0%

30 11 1 20

48.4% 17.7% 1.6% 32.3% 100.0%

89 32 15 62

44.9% 16.2% 7.6% 31.3% 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 14 dismissals as well as 17 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=54)

Percentage

87.0

13.0

Bronx (N=50)

76.0

24.0

Manhattan (N=56)

98.2

1.8

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=69)

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

21.7

78.3

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

Citywide (N=229)

67.7

32.3

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(N=160)

2.2

B Felonies

4.3

(N=2)

2.6

A Felonies

7.0

93.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

90.4

JO Part Non-JO Part

50.0 50.0

Percent

Convicted

75.0

14.3 10.7

(N=67)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

2.6

97.4

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

5.8 2.6

86.5

6.8 6.8

(N=229)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

91.6

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 2

4.0%

0 0 0

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.9%

0 0 0

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

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

74.1%

76.0%

64.3%

66.7%

160

69.9%

29 1 3 33

87.9% 3.0% 9.1% 100.0%

27 0 4 31

87.1% 0.0% 12.9% 100.0%

33 2 1 36

91.7% 5.6% 2.8% 100.0%

14 0 0 14

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

103 3 8 114

90.4% 2.6% 7.0% 100.0%

5 1 1 7

71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%

6 0 1 7

85.7% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

32 0 0 32

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

43 1 2 46

93.5% 2.2% 4.3% 100.0%

25.9%

20.0%

35.7%

33.3%

29.3%

13 1 0 14

92.9% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 0 19

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

38 1 0 39

97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16 4 2 22

72.7% 18.2% 9.1% 100.0%

21 4 3 28

75.0% 14.3% 10.7% 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:

0 0 0 0 54

100.0%

229

100.0%

42 2 3 47

89.4% 4.3% 6.4% 100.0%

33 0 5 38

86.8% 0.0% 13.2% 100.0%

52 2 1 55

94.5% 3.6% 1.8% 100.0%

15 0 0 15

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

142 4 9 155

91.6% 2.6% 5.8% 100.0%

5 1 1 7

71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%

11 0 1 12

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

48 4 2 54

88.9% 7.4% 3.7% 100.0%

64 5 5 74

86.5% 6.8% 6.8% 100.0%

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

B Felonies (N=155)

(N=2)

8.5

11 10 9 7

Remand

(N=61)

C or D Felonies

5.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

13.5

Median Number of Days

ROR

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=218)

All Charges

10.5 9

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

13.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

13.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

13.5

9.0

12.0

11.0

1.0

155

9.0

14 8 9 6

8.5 11.5 12.0 13.5

16 6 7 7

9.5 20.0 13.0 11.0

9 4 11 12

8.0 13.0 10.0 12.5

19 10 10 7

1.0 1.0 10.0 1.0

58 28 37 32

4.0 8.5 11.0 10.0

5.0

7.0

12.0

1.0

6.0

5 3 1 3

5.0 11.0 5.0 5.0

6 0 3 2

5.0 9.0 4.0

7 5 1 6

15.0 6.0 10.0 14.0

9 6 0 4

1.0 3.0 1.0

27 14 5 15

4.0 5.5 9.0 7.0

9.0

11.0

1.0

218

8.0

19 11 10 9

7.0 11.0 10.0 9.0

22 6 10 11

9.0 20.0 12.5 11.0

16 9 12 18

9.5 6.0 10.0 13.0

28 16 10 11

1.0 2.0 10.0 1.0

85 42 42 49

4.0 6.0 10.5 9.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 11 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

200

300

B Felonies (N=155)

121

(N=2)

50.5

131.5

166 126

Remand

(N=61)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

215

Median Number of Days

ROR

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=218)

All Charges

116.5

122.5

139

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

215.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

215.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

215.0

122.0

192.0

185.5

0.0

155

112.0

14 8 9 6

88.5 243.0 143.0 186.0

16 6 7 7

177.0 378.5 194.0 148.0

9 4 11 12

112.0 192.5 124.0 191.0

19 10 10 7

0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0

58 28 37 32

50.5 131.5 121.0 166.0

95.5

91.0

147.0

0.0

92.0

5 3 1 3

73.0 127.0 126.0 92.0

6 0 3 2

88.0 105.0 12.5

7 5 1 6

168.0 98.0 231.0 202.5

9 6 0 4

0.0 87.5 0.0

27 14 5 15

58.0 98.0 126.0 59.0

120.0

169.0

168.0

0.0

218

98.0

19 11 10 9

80.0 200.0 134.5 139.0

22 6 10 11

170.0 378.5 161.0 148.0

16 9 12 18

157.0 126.0 133.5 191.0

28 16 10 11

0.0 18.5 87.0 0.0

85 42 42 49

56.0 116.5 122.5 139.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 11 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=160)

(N=2)

A Felonies

13.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=67)

C or D Felonies

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=229)

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

13.5

0 0

2 0

13.5 -

0 0

2 0

13.5 -

9.0

12.5

11.0

1.0

160

9.0

35 5

9.0 8.0

30 8

13.0 1.0

36 0

11.0 -

14 32

6.0 1.0

115 45

11.0 1.0

6.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

14 0

6.0 -

5 5

9.0 1.0

19 1

10.0 1.0

1 22

7.0 1.0

39 28

9.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

9.0

11.0

1.0

229

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

49 5

9.0 8.0

37 13

13.0 1.0

55 1

11.0 1.0

15 54

6.0 1.0

156 73

11.0 1.0

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

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

100

200

B Felonies (N=160)

(N=2)

154

A Felonies

215

Median Number of Days

(N=67)

C or D Felonies

126

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=229)

All Charges

147.5

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

215.0

0 0

2 0

215.0 -

0 0

2 0

215.0 -

121.0

192.0

189.5

0.0

160

112.0

35 5

120.0 146.0

30 8

221.0 0.0

36 0

185.5 -

14 32

86.5 0.0

115 45

154.0 0.0

95.5

58.0

139.5

0.0

79.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

14 0

95.5 -

5 5

149.0 0.0

19 1

147.0 0.0

1 22

77.0 0.0

39 28

126.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

113.5

171.0

161.0

0.0

229

98.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

49 5

112.0 146.0

37 13

206.0 0.0

55 1

168.0 0.0

15 54

86.0 0.0

156 73

147.5 0.0

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

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

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Exhibit 6A presents the sentences given in Supreme Court, by borough, with Table 6a providing the detailed distribution for each conviction-charge severity category. A total of 207 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2003 were for juvenile offenders. This is a sharp increase from the 147 sentences in the previous reporting period, but comparable to the 207 and 216 sentences in 2001 and 2000, respectively. More JO cases reached sentencing in each borough. The increase in the volume of sentences was greatest in Brooklyn, where 22 more cases reached sentencing in 2003 (55) than in 2002 (33), and nearly as many as in 2001 (60). The volume of sentences also increased sharply in Manhattan (from 46 to 62), and the Bronx (from 23 to 36), with a smaller change in Queens (from 46 to 54). The borough composition of the sentences has thereby shifted again to a small extent, with fewer of the sentences coming from Queens and more from Brooklyn while Manhattan and Bronx cases account for about the same proportion of sentences as in the previous reporting period. Three of every ten sentences in JO cases were given in Manhattan, and about a quarter of the sentences were given in Brooklyn and Queens, and only 17 percent in the Bronx. Overall, less than half of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 2003 were custodial. This includes either imprisonment only (39%) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (7%). This is lower than the rate in 2002 (51%, with 41% sentenced to imprisonment only and 10% receiving a “split” sentence). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles received were large. Sentences for juveniles in the Bronx (80%) and Brooklyn (58%) were more likely to be incarcerative than in Queens (35%) and sentences were least likely to include incarceration in Manhattan (26%). Probation with no incarceration was most common in Manhattan (74%), followed by Queens (61%) and Brooklyn (40%) and lowest in the Bronx (19%). Although we report borough differences in the proportion of sentences for juvenile offenders that include or exclude incarceration, it is beyond the scope of this report to examine borough differences in pretrial detention. However, it is important to note that juveniles who did not receive custodial sanctions may have spent considerable time in pretrial detention. As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was far higher for the juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (53%) than for those convicted at lesser severity levels (33%). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in JO cases in 2003 in the JO Parts to those given to in JO cases in non-JO Parts, citywide, and for different conviction-charge severities. Sentences for juveniles convicted in JO Parts (51%) were more likely to be incarcerative than were sentences for those convicted in non-JO Parts (35%). Juveniles were far more likely to be sentenced to straight imprisonment in JO Parts (44%) and slightly less likely to receive a split sentence (7%) than in non-JO Parts (24% and 11%, respectively). In contrast, in 2002, sentences in JO Parts differed little from those 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 in 2002 (16%, compared to 7% in the JO Parts). In 2003, about half of the

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

sentences for juveniles convicted in the JO Parts required probation only, about the same proportion as in the previous reporting period. However, in non-JO Parts, sentences to probation were more common in 2003 (60%) than in those parts in the previous reporting period (45%) or in the JO Parts in 2003 (49%). 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 straight imprisonment, compared to only 28 percent of the sentences in comparable cases in non-JO Parts. 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 tendencies of specialized court parts for juveniles. For example, 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. Manhattan cases account for nearly three of every ten sentences for juveniles in 2003, but 43 percent of sentences in the JO Part. The sentences to probation that are granted in the Manhattan JO Part account for nearly two thirds of the probation sentences in JO Parts citywide in 2003. In Queens, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences account for the majority (67%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2003. The overwhelming majority of probation sentences for juvenile offenders in non-JO Parts citywide in 2003 were granted in Queens. 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 (83%) than in non-JO Parts (17%) in 2003, and account for only 17 percent of sentences during the reporting period, they account for four of every ten sentences to straight imprisonment in JO Parts citywide. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn were far more likely to take place in the JO Part (74%) than in a non-JO Part (26%) in 2003, but in the previous reporting period they were about equally as likely to take place in the JO Part as in a non-JO Part. The volume of Brooklyn juvenile cases prosecuted in a non-JO part that reached sentencing decreased by three juveniles during this reporting period, while the volume of these cases in the JO Part increased by 25. The distribution of juvenile cases between JO and non-JO Parts across boroughs, and changes in these distributions from year to year, affect citywide comparisons, particularly because the volume of cases in many of the borough-court partcharge-outcome categories is so small. Exhibit 6C.1 and Table 6c display 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 YO17 status in three quarters of the sentences during the reporting period, about the same proportion as in recent report periods. Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were less likely to receive YO status than were their 17

If a juvenile offender is found to be a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;youthful offender,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; the conviction is vacated and replaced by a youthful offender finding. A lighter sentence, one authorized for conviction at the E-felony level, is imposed.

-79Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (74%, compared to 84%). However, the finding was reversed in 2002 (80% in JO Parts, compared to 69% in non-JO Parts). Again, the citywide figures mask borough differences and type of court part is strongly related to the use of SCIs, which, as discussed earlier, varies by borough. YO status was granted in nine of every ten sentences in Queens, eight of every ten in Manhattan, seven of every ten of the sentences in Brooklyn, and nearly two thirds of those in the Bronx. Again, the JO Part totals disproportionately reflect the conditions of sentence granted in Manhattan, then Brooklyn and the Bronx, 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. 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, and Tables 6d and 6e give the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 2003 for each of the conviction-charge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2003 appeared a median of thirteen times in Supreme Court, and a median of 246 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was shorter by two appearances and nearly two weeks. However, length of case was longer in 2001 (13 appearances and 292 days). Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (3 appearances, 55 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of thirteen appearance in Brooklyn (246 days), fourteen appearances in the Bronx (258 days) and 22 appearances (469 days) in Manhattan. The median number of appearances decreased by one appearance and one day in Queens. In the Bronx, the median number of appearances increased by two and a half appearances and nearly three weeks. The Brooklyn median length-of-case numbers increased by three appearances and two and half weeks. In Manhattan, the median number of appearances remained constant, but the number of days decreased by nearly two and half months. 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, borough differences are very strong and the small numbers of cases in many categories limit analysis within borough. 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.

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

The median number of appearances and median number of days is much higher for those sentenced in the JO Parts (16 appearances and 281 days) than for those sentenced in other parts (3 appearances and 60 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 sixteen appearances and 275 days in the JO Parts and three appearances and about 58 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 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. Length of case from first appearance in the Supreme Court to sentence did not vary by charge severity at disposition among cases disposed in the JO Parts and showed a small difference among cases disposed in non-JO Parts. The median number of appearances and days for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level in a JO Part (16 appearances and 275 days) were similar to those for juveniles convicted at the C- or Dfelony level (16 appearances and 308 days). In the non-JO Parts, B-felony cases took a median of only three appearances and 58 days, compared to five appearances and 62 days for cases with convictions at the C- or D-felony level. Despite the lower volume of cases sentenced in non-JO Parts, the comparatively short length of case in the non-JO Parts citywide probably reflects the faster processing time characteristic of cases prosecuted in Queens. It is tempting to attribute borough differences in elapsed time to the differential use of SCIs in the boroughs. It is possible that the negotiations that precede the decision to bring a case to the upper court by SCI rather than by indictment include discussions of likely sentencing options which 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 nearly two and half times longer than the citywide average, taking an average of 20 days citywide but seven weeks in Queens. For the juveniles who were held on bail, the median number of days in Queens is nearly four times longer (46 days, compared to only 12 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 nonJO 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 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

-81Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

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=55)

Percentage

45.5

12.7

40.0

1.8

Bronx (N=36)

Imprisonment

75.0

5.6

19.4

Manhattan (N=62)

25.8

74.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=54)

Probation

2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

24.1

11.1

61.1

3.7

Other

Citywide (N=207)

39.1

7.2

52.2

1.4

-82-

-83-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 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

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 1

2.8%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

61.8%

69.4%

61.3%

68.5%

134

64.7%

17 4 12 1

50.0% 11.8% 35.3% 2.9% 100.0%

19 2 4 0

76.0% 8.0% 16.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 24 0

36.8% 0.0% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

10 5 21 1

27.0% 13.5% 56.8% 2.7% 100.0%

60 11 61 2

44.8% 8.2% 45.5% 1.5% 100.0%

38.2%

27.8%

38.7%

31.5%

34.8%

8 3 10 0

38.1% 14.3% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 3 0

70.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 22 0

8.3% 0.0% 91.7% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 12 1

17.6% 5.9% 70.6% 5.9% 94.1%

20 4 47 1

27.8% 5.6% 65.3% 1.4% 98.6%

100.0%

207

100.0%

25 7 22 1

45.5% 12.7% 40.0% 1.8% 100.0%

27 2 7 0

75.0% 5.6% 19.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 46 0

25.8% 0.0% 74.2% 0.0% 100.0%

13 6 33 2

24.1% 11.1% 61.1% 3.7% 100.0%

81 15 108 3

39.1% 7.2% 52.2% 1.4% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5.6

(N=134)

Non-JO Part

11.2

27.8

(N=1)

JO Part

8.2

40.8

B Felonies

Non-JO Part

51.0

55.6

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Imprisonment

4.3

67.4

3.8

Other

(N=72)

C or D Felonies

Non-JO Part

11.5

19.2

65.4

Probation

JO Part

28.3

Sentence Imp. and Probation

2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

6.9

4.8

Non-JO Part

11.3

24.2

59.7

(N=207)

All Felonies

JO Part

44.1

49.0

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

-84-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=14)

(N=41)

42.9

21.4

28.6

7.1

JO Part

Brooklyn

43.9

12.2

43.9

Percentage

(N=30)

JO Part

33.3

66.7

(N=6)

Non JO Part

Bronx

86.7

3.3

10.0

Imprisonment

(N=62)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

25.8

74.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=12)

JO Part

(N=42)

Non JO Part

21.4

4.8

69.0

4.8

Other

Queens

33.3

Probation

2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

24.2

11.3

59.7

(N=145) (N=62)

JO Part

Citywide

44.1

6.9

49.0

4.8

-85-

-86-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

2.8%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

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

61.8%

69.4%

61.3%

68.5%

134

64.7%

13 3 9 0 25

52.0% 12.0% 36.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 1 3 0 23

82.6% 4.3% 13.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 24 0 38

36.8% 0.0% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

4 4 4 0 12

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

50 8 40 0 98

51.0% 8.2% 40.8% 0.0% 100.0%

4 2 2 1 9

44.4% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0%

0 1 1 0 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

6 1 17 1 25

24.0% 4.0% 68.0% 4.0% 100.0%

10 4 20 2 36

27.8% 11.1% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%

38.2%

27.8%

38.7%

31.5%

34.8%

5 2 9 0 16

31.3% 12.5% 56.3% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 0 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 22 0 24

8.3% 0.0% 91.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

13 2 31 0 46

28.3% 4.3% 67.4% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1 2 0 5

40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 0 4

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

100.0%

18 5 18 0 41

43.9% 12.2% 43.9% 0.0% 100.0%

26 1 3 0 30

86.7% 3.3% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 46 0 62

6 3 4 1 14

42.9% 21.4% 28.6% 7.1% 100.0%

0 2 4 0 6

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 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:

3 1 12 1 17

17.6% 5.9% 70.6% 5.9% 100.0%

5 3 17 1 26

19.2% 11.5% 65.4% 3.8% 100.0%

100.0%

207

100.0%

25.8% 0.0% 74.2% 0.0% 100.0%

4 4 4 0 12

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

64 10 71 0 145

44.1% 6.9% 49.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 2 29 2 42

21.4% 4.8% 69.0% 4.8% 100.0%

15 7 37 3 62

24.2% 11.3% 59.7% 4.8% 100.0%

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19.4

(N=132)

11.1

Non-JO Part

88.9

(N=72)

C or D Felonies

JO Part

88.9

Not Youthful Offender

Non-JO Part

(N=1)

JO Part

32.3

B Felonies

Non-JO Part

67.7

80.6

A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Youthful Offender

2003 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

26.1

Non-JO Part

15.9

(N=205)

All Charges

JO Part

73.9

84.1

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

-87-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=15)

(N=39)

60.0

40.0

JO Part

Brooklyn

74.4

25.6

Percentage

(N=30)

JO Part

100.0

(N=6)

Non JO Part

Bronx

56.7

43.3

(N=61)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

80.3

19.7

Non JO Part

90.5

9.5

(N=12) (N=42)

JO Part

Queens

83.3

16.7

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

73.9

26.1

Non JO Part

84.1

15.9

(N=142) (N=63)

JO Part

Citywide

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

-88-

-89-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

2.8%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

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

61.1%

69.4%

60.7%

68.5%

132

64.4%

17 7 24

70.8% 29.2% 100.0%

12 11 23

52.2% 47.8% 100.0%

26 11 37

70.3% 29.7% 100.0%

10 2 12

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

65 31 96

67.7% 32.3% 100.0%

5 4 9

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

22 3 25

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

29 7 36

80.6% 19.4% 100.0%

38.9%

27.8%

39.3%

31.5%

35.1%

12 3 15

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

5 1 6

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

23 1 24

95.8% 4.2% 100.0%

0 0

40 5 45

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

4 2 6

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

100.0%

29 10 39

74.4% 25.6% 100.0%

17 13 30

56.7% 43.3% 100.0%

49 12 61

9 6 15

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 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*:

16 1 17

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

24 3 27

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

100.0%

205

100.0%

80.3% 19.7% 100.0%

10 2 12

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

105 37 142

73.9% 26.1% 100.0%

38 4 42

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

53 10 63

84.1% 15.9% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender 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. * Excludes 2 cases for which conditions of sentence were not available

C or D Felonies (N=67)

(N=130)

14.5

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

10.5

Remand

(N=198)

All Charges

10.5

17.5 14.5

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

2003 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:

-90-

-91-

Table 6d Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

18.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

18.0

15.0

17.0

22.0

3.0

130

13.5

10 8 6 7

16.0 10.5 19.5 16.0

5 1 1 18

12.0 18.0 14.0 17.5

15 4 3 15

25.0 14.0 21.0 22.0

16 6 1 14

3.0 3.0 12.0 7.0

46 19 11 54

14.0 10.0 16.0 14.5

11.0

8.5

22.0

3.0

11.0

7 4 3 4

7.0 14.0 19.0 9.5

4 1 0 5

7.0 7.0 13.0

9 7 0 7

22.0 16.0 28.0

10 3 0 3

3.0 2.0 3.0

30 15 3 19

8.0 12.0 19.0 13.0

13.0

14.5

22.0

3.0

198

13.0

17 12 9 11

10.0 11.5 19.0 15.0

9 2 1 24

9.0 12.5 14.0 17.5

24 11 3 22

23.0 15.0 21.0 24.5

26 9 1 17

3.0 3.0 12.0 7.0

76 34 14 74

10.5 10.5 17.5 14.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 9 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

224.5

C or D Felonies (N=67)

118

155

(N=130)

259.5

377

B Felonies

191

289

Median Number of Days

279

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

201.5

Remand

(N=198)

All Charges

220

287.5 267

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

500

ROR

2003 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:

-92-

-93-

Table 6e Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

309.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

309.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

309.0

248.0

289.0

504.0

61.0

130

248.5

10 8 6 7

204.5 226.5 300.5 275.0

5 1 1 18

248.0 373.0 289.0 305.0

15 4 3 15

546.0 237.0 427.0 546.0

16 6 1 14

53.0 58.0 286.0 82.5

46 19 11 54

224.5 191.0 289.0 259.5

222.5

97.5

434.0

52.0

240.0

7 4 3 4

128.0 428.0 155.0 389.5

4 1 0 5

59.0 175.0 133.0

9 7 0 7

462.0 378.0 588.0

10 3 0 3

52.0 54.0 35.0

30 15 3 19

118.0 377.0 155.0 279.0

246.0

257.5

469.0

55.0

198

246.0

17 12 9 11

191.0 336.0 248.0 275.0

9 2 1 24

98.0 274.0 289.0 273.0

24 11 3 22

497.0 287.0 427.0 574.0

26 9 1 17

53.0 55.0 286.0 78.0

76 34 14 74

201.5 220.0 287.5 267.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 9 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

C or D Felonies (N=72)

(N=134)

B Felonies

16.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=207)

All Charges

16.5

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2003 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:

-94-

-95-

Table 6f Median Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

18.0

0 0

1 0

18.0 -

0 0

1 0

18.0 -

14.5

17.0

21.5

3.0

134

13.5

25 9

14.0 17.0

23 2

18.0 5.0

38 0

21.5 -

12 25

8.0 3.0

98 36

16.5 3.0

9.0

8.5

22.0

3.0

10.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

15 6

9.0 11.5

6 4

15.5 4.0

24 0

22.0 -

0 17

3.0

45 27

16.0 5.0

ALL CHARGES:

13.0

14.5

22.0

3.0

207

13.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

40 15

13.0 16.0

30 6

18.0 4.0

62 0

22.0 -

12 42

8.0 3.0

144 63

16.5 3.0

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

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

C or D Felonies (N=72)

(N=134)

57.5

308

B Felonies

275

Median Number of Days

(N=207)

All Charges

281

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2003 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:

-96-

-97-

Table 6g Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2003 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

309.0

0 0

1 0

309.0 -

0 0

1 0

309.0 -

233.0

289.0

493.5

61.0

134

248.0

25 9

183.0 596.0

23 2

322.0 43.5

38 0

493.5 -

12 25

105.5 53.0

98 36

275.0 57.5

155.0

97.5

430.5

54.0

217.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

15 6

146.0 416.5

6 4

207.5 53.5

24 0

430.5 -

0 17

54.0

45 27

308.0 62.0

ALL CHARGES:

206.0

257.5

462.0

57.5

207

240.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

40 15

174.5 442.0

30 6

288.5 49.5

62 0

462.0 -

12 42

105.5 53.0

144 63

281.0 60.0

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.

-98Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 303 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, a marked increase from the 195 juveniles released at arraignment during the previous reporting period, which followed an increase from 153 releases in 2001. As shown in Exhibit 7A, about five percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2003, slightly lower than the six percent rate in 2002 and 2001, but much higher than in 2000 (1%). The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2003 for juveniles arraigned in 2003, and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2003. 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) rate18 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 Brooklyn Criminal Court. The FTA rate in Brooklyn was seven percent of the 102 juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment. The FTA rate was higher in Manhattan (9%) where six of the 69 juveniles who were released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment missed a scheduled court appearance. Only one the 81 released juveniles missed a scheduled appearance in the Criminal Court in the Bronx and none of the 25 juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment in Queens failed to appear as scheduled. 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 (26 in 2003) 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 number of cases where the juvenile secured release on ROR or on bail at the first appearance in the upper court was greater during this reporting period (120) than in 2002, 2001, or 2000 (90, 81, and 93, respectively). The FTA rate in Supreme Court (9%)19 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it has been in 18

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

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

- 99 Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2003 (Second half of FY 2003 through First half of FY 2004; January - December, 2003)

previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (12%, compared to 5% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (3%, 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 lower than the rate reported for 2002 (13%), 2001 (12%), 2000 (13%), and 1999 (13%).

-100-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2003 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 95.4% Yes 4.6%

(N=303)

46.0%

7 204

211

0 1

3.3% 96.7% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.5%

2 156

158

0 8

1 58

0 10

1 80

1.3% 98.7% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.1%

1.7% 98.3% 100.0%

37.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.3%

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

51.3%

6 124

130

0 0

0 60

0 1

6 63

4.6% 95.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

46.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.8%

8.7% 91.3% 100.0%

53.1%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

1 114

115

0 0

1 85

0 4

0 25

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

74.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.7%

Queens %

16 598

614

0 9

2 300

302

0 26

14 263

277

2.6% 97.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.5%

0.7% 99.3% 100.0%

49.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.2%

5.1% 94.9% 100.0%

45.1%

CITYWIDE N %

* The total excludes 6 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

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 11

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

0 97

5.2%

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

6.9% 93.1% 100.0%

48.3%

7 95

102

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 2003 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

Table 7a

-101-

-102-

Exhibit 7B Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court For Defendants Released at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 2003 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 9.2%

No 90.8%

(N=120)

0 6

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

5 37

0 5

1 4

0 10

11.9% 88.1% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.9%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

11.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

23.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

14.3%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

38.1%

5 47

1 1

0 15

2 6

1 6

1 19

9.6% 90.4% 100.0%

100.0%

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

28.8%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

15.4%

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

13.5%

5.0% 95.0% 100.0%

38.5%

8 49

0 3

4 12

0 10

0 6

4 18

14.0% 86.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

28.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

17.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10.5%

18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

38.6%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 69

1 5 6

1 10

0 12

0 14

1 28

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

100.0%

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

8.3%

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

15.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

19.4%

3.4% 96.6% 100.0%

40.3%

Queens N %

21 202

223

2 14

6 41

2 38

1 32

10 77

9.4% 90.6% 100.0%

100.0%

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

7.2%

12.8% 87.2% 100.0%

21.1%

5.0% 95.0% 100.0%

17.9%

3.0% 97.0% 100.0%

14.8%

11.5% 88.5% 100.0%

39.0%

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:

4 12

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 2003 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-103-

-104-

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.