Juveniles Report 04 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 2004

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2005

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 2004

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

Dale Sealy Programmer/Analyst

November 2005

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

-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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

30 33 34 35 36 37

-iv-

Table 3c: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ 40 Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 41 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..........................................................................

42 45 46 47 48

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

54 59 60 61 62 63 64

49 50 51

65 66 67 68

-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 .............

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

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. In 1978, New York State passed the Juvenile Offender (JO) Law as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill. This legislation created, for New York, a "waiver-down" rather than a "waiver-up" system typical in most states. In New York, when a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old juvenile is arrested for a serious offense, such as first degree assault or first degree robbery (or a thirteen-year-old is arrested for second degree murder), the case is filed directly in the adult court. By contrast, in the "waiver-up" system usually found, jurisdiction for juveniles arrested for serious offenses begins in the juvenile court, and the case may then be transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate. 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 2004 (the second half of fiscal year 2004 and the first half of fiscal year 2005). The report describes selected characteristics of those arrested, and also provides information on court activity for 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 sanctions. 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; 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 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

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 (DAT) 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 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 arraigned in the hospital without going through a police central booking facility are not interviewed. In Manhattan, CJA does not interview defendants arrested solely on charges of prostitution except for those processed through the Midtown Community Court. 2

The seventeen serious offenses include two charges added to the list as of November 1, 1998: 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree and 265.03, possession of a weapon with second degree, where the weapon is possessed on school grounds.

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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 hearings, for both courts; for Supreme Court, sentence information is also included. This report covers the 2004 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. It is divided into seven sections: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Arrest; Criminal Court (CC) arraignment; Criminal Court disposition; Supreme Court (SC) first appearance; Supreme Court disposition; Supreme Court sentence; Failure-to-appear rates.

Any case which had a specific action (arrest, arraignment, disposition, or sentence) during the reporting period is counted in the appropriate section. If a case had two or more actions, it is counted multiple times. For example, if a defendant was arrested and arraigned in Criminal Court during the reporting period, that case would be counted in both the arrest and Criminal Court arraignment sections. Thus, the report does not present a picture of only those defendants who entered the system during a reporting

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 55 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 184, only 50 cases with female defendants were arraigned in Criminal Court. Past Criminal Court arraignment then, full gender distributions are not displayed, nor are percentages calculated. These also are available on request. Finally, release status of defendants is available only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, we present defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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

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.

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

-5Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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, 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 1644 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. More than one of every three of these arrests were filed in adult court —1038 cases (63%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, about half were not transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (85%). 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. 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 to 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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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

Retention in System (% of total volume)

Release Decision

Out

Retained

Released

Detained

Arrests

1644

1038 (63%)

606 (37%)

Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

580

2 (0%)

578 (100%)

282 (49%)7

294 (51%)

CC Dispositions

615

314 (51%)

SC 1st Appearances

294

11 (4%)

283 (96%)

145 (54%)

SC Dispositions

244

37 (15%)

207 (85%)

115 (56%)

301 (49%) data not available data not available 8

122 (46%)

92 (44%)

The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 576 cases, not 580, because release status is missing for the docket in three juvenile cases, and was not relevant for the docket that was dismissed.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 267 cases, not 294, because release status data is missing for thirteen cases and was not relevant for the eight cases that were dismissed nor for the six cases 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 207, not 244, because release status is missing for 14 juvenile cases and the release decision is not relevant for the 23 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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1644 arrests for JO offenses in 2004. This is slightly lower than the 1672 arrests reported in 2003, higher than the 1556 in 2002, and comparable to the 1686 arrests reported in 2001. Nevertheless, the current volume of JO arrests remains much lower than the peak volume of roughly 2400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1, second degree robbery was the most serious charge for 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 2004, thirteen of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first degree kidnapping, or first degree arson) compared to only four arrests in 2003, eight 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 seven 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 37 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 80 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 seven percent of the arrests for JO offenses in 2004. 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 47 percent in the Bronx to 56 percent in Staten Island. JO arrests for second degree burglary were relatively rare in Staten Island (7%) and most common in Manhattan (29%). Arrests for second degree burglary account for more than one of every ten JO arrests in Staten Island and Queens, compared to nearly nine percent in the Bronx and only four percent and two percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively (Table 1a). 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 2004. 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 56 and 62 percent across the four largest boroughs. The JO arrests reported in 2004 were as likely to involve fifteen-year-olds as were those reported in previous years. There were two JO arrests involving thirteen-year-olds 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 higher percentage of cases with the more severe charges than of cases with lesser

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

charges, but the difference is far narrower in 2004 than it was in previous years: 61 percent of the juveniles in B-felony arrests but only 59 percent of those in C- or D-felony arrests were fifteen years old at arrest, compared to 65 percent versus 60 percent in 2003. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (89%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of arrestees who were male have been small in previous years, with a spread of six percentage points across the four largest boroughs in 2003. In 2004, however, nearly a fifth of the Manhattan JO arrests involved a female arrestee, compared to only one in every ten in 2003. In contrast, during the previous reporting period, female arrestees comprised nearly 16 percent of Bronx JO arrests, but they account for less than eight percent in that borough in 2004. Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, nine percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to thirteen percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, nearly two thirds of the 2004 JO arrests were not docketed.10 The proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2004 (37%) is the same as in the previous year and 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: 2004 JO Arrests

Burglary 1 0.5%

Other* 11.4%

Murder 2 0.7%

Robbery 1 23.5%

Burglary 2 6.6%

Assault 1 4.2%

Att. Murder 2 1.0%

Robbery 2 52.1%

(N=1,644)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=543)

Percentage

Manhattan (N=299)

1.7

27.8

49.8

3.7

17.1

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

1.1 0.6

0.6 0.7

Bronx (N=363)

24.0

46.8

4.7

22.9

Att. Murder 2

24.5

55.4

4.2

14.5

Murder 2

2004 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough:

Queens (N=384)

1.3 1.3

20.6

53.4

3.4

20.1

Assault 1

Staten Is. (N=55)

Other*

7.3

56.4

9.1

27.3

-10-

543

100.0%

363

170 32 6 18

226

4 87 17 0 5 16 3 0 1 0

133

2 0 2

100.0%

46.8% 8.8% 1.7% 5.0%

62.3%

1.1% 24.0% 4.7% 0.0% 1.4% 4.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

36.6%

0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

1.1%

Bronx N %

299

149 5 9 17

180

5 83 11 0 6 11 1 0 2 0

119

0 0 0

100.0%

49.8% 1.7% 3.0% 5.7%

60.2%

1.7% 27.8% 3.7% 0.0% 2.0% 3.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

39.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

5 0 0

384

205 43 8 16

272

5 79 13 0 1 3 0 6 0 0

100.0%

53.4% 11.2% 2.1% 4.2%

70.8%

1.3% 20.6% 3.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

27.9%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

Queens %

107

31 8 0 0

0 4 5 0 3 4 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

17 386 69 0 21 40 4 9 3 0

549

11 0 2

856 109 37 80

100.0% 1644

56.4% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0%

52.1% 6.6% 2.3% 4.9%

65.8%

1.0% 23.5% 4.2% 0.0% 1.3% 2.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%

33.4%

0.7% 0.0% 0.1%

0.8%

CITYWIDE N %

70.9% 1082

0.0% 7.3% 9.1% 0.0% 5.5% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

29.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Staten Island N %

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

TOTAL

301 21 14 29

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

55.4% 3.9% 2.6% 5.3%

67.2%

365

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

32.0%

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0.7%

0.6% 24.5% 4.2% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

174

4 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 133 23 0 6 6 0 3 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 2004 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=544)

Percentage

43.6

56.4

Bronx (N=363)

38.0

62.0

Manhattan (N=299)

39.1

60.9

Queens (N=384)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2004 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

Staten Is. (N=55)

Citywide (N=1645)

0.1 0.5

59.6

40.3

41.8

58.2

38.5

60.9

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 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 %

0.7%

1.1%

0 1 3

0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

174

32.0%

133

36.6%

119

0 75 99

0.0% 43.1% 56.9% 100.0%

0 48 85

0.0% 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

0 56 63

365

67.2%

226

62.3%

0 160 205

0.0% 43.8% 56.2% 100.0%

0 90 136

543

100.0%

0 236 307

0.0% 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

1.3%

2 0 3

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

39.8%

107

27.9%

0.0% 47.1% 52.9% 100.0%

0 28 79

0.0% 26.2% 73.8% 100.0%

0 7 9

180

60.2%

272

70.8%

0.0% 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%

0 61 119

0.0% 33.9% 66.1% 100.0%

0 120 152

363

100.0%

299

100.0%

0 138 225

0.0% 38.0% 62.0% 100.0%

0 117 182

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 13

0.8%

2 1 10

15.4% 7.7% 76.9% 100.0%

29.1%

549

33.4%

0.0% 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%

0 214 335

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

70.9%

1082

65.8%

0.0% 44.1% 55.9% 100.0%

0 16 23

0.0% 41.0% 59.0% 100.0%

0 447 635

0.0% 41.3% 58.7% 100.0%

384

100.0%

1644

100.0%

2 148 234

0.5% 38.5% 60.9% 100.0%

0 23 32

0.0% 41.8% 58.2% 100.0%

2 662 980

0.1% 40.3% 59.6% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=543)

Percentage

91.5

8.5

Bronx (N=363)

92.3

7.7

Manhattan (N=299)

81.3

18.7

Queens (N=384)

Gender Males Females

2004 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

87.5

12.5

Staten Is. (N=55)

89.1

10.9

Citywide (N=1644)

88.8

11.2

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 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 %

0.7%

1.1%

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

4 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

174

32.1%

133

36.6%

119

162 12

93.1% 6.9% 100.0%

125 8

94.0% 6.0% 100.0%

364

67.2%

226

331 33

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

542 496 46

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE %

1.3%

0.8%

5 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

12 1

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

39.8%

107

27.9%

29.1%

549

33.4%

101 18

84.9% 15.1% 100.0%

98 9

91.6% 8.4% 100.0%

16 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

502 47

91.4% 8.6% 100.0%

62.3%

180

60.2%

272

70.8%

70.9% 1081

65.8%

206 20

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

142 38

78.9% 21.1% 100.0%

233 39

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

33 6

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

945 136

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

100.0%

363

100.0%

299

100.0%

384

100.0%

100.0% 1643

100.0%

91.5% 8.5% 100.0%

335 28

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

243 56

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

336 48

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

49 6

89.1% 1459 10.9% 184 100.0%

88.8% 11.2% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=543)

Percentage

61.3

38.7

Bronx (N=363)

63.4

36.6

Manhattan (N=299)

59.5

40.5

Queens (N=384)

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2004 Arrests

67.7

32.3

Staten Is. (N=55)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough:

67.3

32.7

Citywide (N=1644)

63.1

36.9

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.7%

1.1%

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

174

32.0%

133

36.6%

119

41 133

23.6% 76.4% 100.0%

40 93

30.1% 69.9% 100.0%

365

67.2%

226

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

291 74

79.7% 20.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

543

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

333 210

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

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

1.3%

0.8%

3 2

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 0

6 7

46.2% 53.8% 100.0%

39.8%

107

27.9%

29.1%

549

33.4%

25 94

21.0% 79.0% 100.0%

30 77

28.0% 72.0% 100.0%

5 11

31.3% 68.8% 100.0%

141 408

25.7% 74.3% 100.0%

62.3%

180

60.2%

272

70.8%

70.9% 1082

65.8%

188 38

83.2% 16.8% 100.0%

153 27

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

227 45

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

32 7

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

891 191

82.3% 17.7% 100.0%

100.0%

363

100.0%

299

100.0%

384

100.0%

100.0% 1644

100.0%

61.3% 38.7% 100.0%

230 133

63.4% 36.6% 100.0%

178 121

59.5% 40.5% 100.0%

260 124

67.7% 32.3% 100.0%

37 18

67.3% 1038 32.7% 606 100.0%

63.1% 36.9% 100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 58011 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, fewer than the 620 arraigned in 2003 but 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 decrease in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The decrease was largest in the Bronx (21%), followed by Manhattan (12%), and the arraignment volume increased by eleven percent in Queens. The actual numbers of JO arraignments during the reporting period are very similar for Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan, each accounting for about a fifth of the citywide volume. For 2004, it is the JO arraignment volume in Queens that is second to the Brooklyn volume which is still the largest across the boroughs and accounts for more than a third of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that half of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery and another third were for second degree robbery. Thus, more than 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 2003, the proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery charges is five percentage points higher and the proportion arraigned on second degree robbery charges is four percentage points lower than in 2003. 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, 26 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. Charges at arraignment varied less by borough than in previous reporting periods. As shown in Exhibit 2A.2, the proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery ranged from 48 to 51 percent. When first and second degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences are little wider, ranging from only 76 percent in 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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

Manhattan to 81, 83, and 86 percent in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, respectively. Manhattan shows a particularly high proportion of dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges (11%, compared to 3% or less in the other boroughs). The proportion of docketed juvenile cases with assault charges ranged from four percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan to six percent in the Bronx and eight percent in Queens. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.12 There were very few dismissals (1) or transfers to Family Court (1) at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 46 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2004. The rate of ROR is similar to the ROR rate in 2003 (45%) but markedly higher than the rate in any previous period in this reporting series, which ranged from 28 to 40 percent. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR decreased in Manhattan (from 53% to 47%) and the Bronx (51% to 43%) but increased in Queens (from 22% to 30%) and even more in Brooklyn (from 48% to 58%). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail decreased by a percent in 2004, down to three percent, with a total of only 16 juveniles released on bail at arraignment in 2004. Only three juveniles secured release on bail at arraignment in Manhattan or Queens, four in Brooklyn and six in the Bronx. The juveniles arraigned in Queens again showed higher rates of detention at arraignment (68%) than did those arraigned in other boroughs (52% and 50% in the Bronx and Manhattan, respectively, and 40% in Brooklyn). 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 (equal to 2003, but up from 29% in 2002), compared to 64 percent (up from 57% in 2003 and from 35% in 2002) in arraignments for C or D felonies. Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment are large and are apparent even within charge-severity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2004, the proportion released on ROR was highest in Brooklyn (48%), followed by Manhattan (40%) and the Bronx (32%) and lowest in Queens (26%). The borough differences are even wider at the C- and D-felony level because Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn ROR rates are 23 to 35 percentage points higher for juveniles with lesser felony charges while the ROR rate for these juveniles in Queens is just over ten 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: 62 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 45 percent of males. The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, 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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 2004, 71 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, a decrease from 83 percent in 2003 and from 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 88 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, still a marked decrease from the 95 percent with a positive recommendation in 2003. 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.” Both the murder charge and bench warrant exclusions were exercised in three of the four largest boroughs in 2004. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then 92 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2004 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2004 were no more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. Only in Brooklyn did the recommended juveniles show a higher rate of ROR at arraignment (59%) than their counterparts who were not recommended (43%). However, very few arraigned juveniles were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment. In 2004, only 36 juveniles were not recommended on this basis, compared to 16 juveniles in 2003, 27 juveniles in 2002, 19 in 2001 and 26 in 2000.

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2004 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 50.0%

Murder 2 1.0% Other* 6.9%

Att. Murder 2 4.7%

Assault 1 5.3% Robbery 2 32.1%

(N=580)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=207)

Percentage

3.9 1.4

50.2

35.3

4.3

4.8

Murder 2

4.2

50.8

25.4

4.2

15.3

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=118) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

6.3 0.8

47.6

33.3

5.6

6.3

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=126)

Att. Murder 2

2004 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough:

Queens (N=129)

Other*

4.7 1.6

51.2

31.8

7.8

3.1

-22-

207

100.0%

42 0 0 0

8 60 7 0 0 4 2 0 1 0

1 0 1

126

100.0%

33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

33.3%

6.3% 47.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

65.1%

0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

1.6%

118

30 0 0 3

5 60 5 0 5 8 1 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

25.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

28.0%

4.2% 50.8% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2% 6.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

72.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

41 0 2 0

6 66 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

31.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

33.3%

4.7% 51.2% 7.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

65.1%

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

1.6%

Queens %

129

6 1 1

580

186 0 2 9

197

27 290 31 0 6 14 3 2 2 0

100.0%

32.1% 0.0% 0.3% 1.6%

34.0%

4.7% 50.0% 5.3% 0.0% 1.0% 2.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%

64.7%

1.0% 0.2% 0.2%

1.4%

CITYWIDE %

375

TOTAL

73 0 0 6

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

35.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%

38.2%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

59.9%

1.4% 0.5% 0.0%

1.9%

3.9% 50.2% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

124

3 1 0

Brooklyn N %

8 104 9 0 0 1 0 2 0 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 2004 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=207)

Percentage

58.0

1.9

38.2

1.9

ROR

Bronx (N=126)

42.9

4.8

48.4

4.0

Manhattan (N=115)

47.0

2.6

47.8

2.6

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2004 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=128)

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough:

29.7

2.3

64.1

3.9

Citywide (N=576)

46.2

2.8

48.1

3.0

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 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 %

1.9%

1.6%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

124

59.9%

65.1%

71.3%

60 2 61 1

48.4% 1.6% 49.2% 0.8% 100.0%

26 5 49 2

31.7% 6.1% 59.8% 2.4% 100.0%

33 3 43 3

40.2% 3.7% 52.4% 3.7% 100.0%

38.2%

33.3%

60 2 17 0

75.9% 2.5% 21.5% 0.0% 100.0%

28 1 12 1

66.7% 2.4% 28.6% 2.4% 100.0%

207

100.0%

126

120 4 79 4

58.0% 1.9% 38.2% 1.9% 100.0%

54 6 61 5

1.6%

CITYWIDE N % 8

1.4%

0 0 1 7

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

64.8%

371

64.4%

22 1 57 3

26.5% 1.2% 68.7% 3.6% 100.0%

141 11 210 9

38.0% 3.0% 56.6% 2.4% 100.0%

28.7%

33.6%

197

34.2%

21 0 12 0

63.6% 0.0% 36.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16 2 25 0

37.2% 4.7% 58.1% 0.0% 100.0%

125 5 66 1

63.5% 2.5% 33.5% 0.5% 100.0%

100.0%

115

100.0%

128

100.0%

576

100.0%

42.9% 4.8% 48.4% 4.0% 100.0%

54 3 55 3

47.0% 2.6% 47.8% 2.6% 100.0%

38 3 82 5

29.7% 2.3% 64.1% 3.9% 100.0%

266 16 277 17

46.2% 2.8% 48.1% 3.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

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 4 arraignments: 1 dismissal, 1 transfer to Family Court and 2 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Made 2.7%

Bail Set/Made 4.0%

(N=50)

Bail Set/Not Made 32.0%

(N=526)

Remand 2.0%

Females

Remand 3.0%

ROR 62.0%

Males

Bail Set/Not Made 49.6%

ROR 44.7%

2004 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

-26-

120 4 79 4

207

11 0 2 1

109 4 77 3

193

58.0% 1.9% 38.2% 1.9% 100.0%

100.0%

78.6% 0.0% 14.3% 7.1% 100.0%

6.8%

56.5% 2.1% 39.9% 1.6% 100.0%

93.2%

Brooklyn N %

54 6 61 5

126

2 0 4 0

52 6 57 5

120

42.9% 4.8% 48.4% 4.0% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4.8%

43.3% 5.0% 47.5% 4.2% 100.0%

95.2%

54 3 55 3

115

14 1 4 0

40 2 51 3

47.0% 2.6% 47.8% 2.6% 100.0%

100.0%

73.7% 5.3% 21.1% 0.0% 100.0%

16.5%

41.7% 2.1% 53.1% 3.1% 100.0%

83.5%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

38 3 82 5

128

4 1 6 0

34 2 76 5

29.7% 2.3% 64.1% 3.9% 100.0%

100.0%

36.4% 9.1% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

8.6%

29.1% 1.7% 65.0% 4.3% 100.0%

91.4%

Queens %

117

266 16 277 17

576

* Excludes 4 arraignments: 1 dismissal, 1 transfer to Family Court and 2 for which arraignment release status was not available

31 2 16 1

235 14 261 16

526

46.2% 2.8% 48.1% 3.0% 100.0%

100.0%

62.0% 4.0% 32.0% 2.0% 100.0%

8.7%

44.7% 2.7% 49.6% 3.0% 100.0%

91.3%

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 2004 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-27-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=207)

Percentage

72.5

1.4 0.5 6.8

18.8

Bronx (N=126)

69.8

4.0 0.8 4.8

20.6

Manhattan (N=115)

61.7

7.8

1.7

28.7

Queens (N=128)

78.9

4.7 0.8 5.5

10.2

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

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2004 JO Arraignments

Citywide (N=576)

71.2

2.8 0.5 6.3

19.3

-28-

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2004 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

150

72.5%

69.8%

61.7%

101

78.9%

410

71.2%

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

89 3 57 1

59.3% 2.0% 38.0% 0.7% 100.0%

38 6 42 2

43.2% 6.8% 47.7% 2.3% 100.0%

35 1 34 1

49.3% 1.4% 47.9% 1.4% 100.0%

30 3 66 2

29.7% 3.0% 65.3% 2.0% 100.0%

192 13 199 6

46.8% 3.2% 48.5% 1.5% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

6.8%

4.8%

7.8%

5.5%

6.3%

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

6 1 6 1

42.9% 7.1% 42.9% 7.1% 100.0%

4 0 2 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 4 0

55.6% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 5 0

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

17 1 17 1

47.2% 2.8% 47.2% 2.8% 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

0.5%

0.8%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.8%

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 1

66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

1.4%

4.0%

1.7%

4.7%

2.8%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 4 1

0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 2

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 10 6

0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 37.5% 100.0%

18.8%

20.6%

28.7%

10.2%

111

19.3%

24 0 15 0

61.5% 0.0% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 13 2

42.3% 0.0% 50.0% 7.7% 100.0%

14 2 16 1

42.4% 6.1% 48.5% 3.0% 100.0%

6 0 7 0

46.2% 0.0% 53.8% 0.0% 100.0%

55 2 51 3

49.5% 1.8% 45.9% 2.7% 100.0%

207 120 4 79 4

100.0%

126

100.0%

115

100.0%

128

100.0%

576

100.0%

58.0% 1.9% 38.2% 1.9% 100.0%

54 6 61 5

42.9% 4.8% 48.4% 4.0% 100.0%

54 3 55 3

47.0% 2.6% 47.8% 2.6% 100.0%

38 3 82 5

29.7% 2.3% 64.1% 3.9% 100.0%

266 16 277 17

46.2% 2.8% 48.1% 3.0% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 4 arraignments: 1 dismissal, 1 transfer to Family Court and 2 for which arraignment release status was not available

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 615 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, more than the 553 dockets disposed in 2003 or the volume disposed in any previous reporting period since 1999. Again, the citywide increase is not reflected equally in each of the boroughs. There were 32 more dockets disposed in Brooklyn, 23 more in Queens, four more in the Bronx, and three more in Manhattan. 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, 49 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, higher than the rate in 2003 (42%) or in 2002 (37%). Again, there are wide borough differences, with Queens (63%), and the Bronx (62%) showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 47% in Manhattan and 33% in Brooklyn). Further, the change in the proportion of disposed JO dockets transferred to the upper court varied by borough. The increase was huge in the Bronx (20 percentage points), modest in Brooklyn (10 percentage points), very small in Queens (one percentage point) and the Supreme Court transfer rate actually decreased by seven percentage points in Manhattan. The citywide rate of transfer to Family Court decreased by ten percentage points, from 32 percent in the previous reporting period down to 22 percent in 2004. Here there was no change in the Bronx, and a small decline in both Manhattan and Queens, while the rate of transfer to Family Court dropped sharply in Brooklyn, from 59 percent in 2003 to only 35 percent in 2004. The dismissal rate is slightly higher in 2004 (29%) than it was in 2003 (26%). The rate of dismissal in Criminal Court for JO dockets ranged from only one of every six disposed in Queens or the Bronx, to nearly one of every three in Brooklyn and more than one in every two in Manhattan. The rate of dismissal increased by six to fourteen percentage points in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn, but decreased by 19 percentage points in the Bronx. Of course, dismissal of the docket in Criminal Court did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. However, the wide range of dispositions across the boroughs 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. Charge relates strongly to the likelihood the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. As presented in Exhibit 3B.2 (with the full display provided in Table 3b), the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than 13

Juvenile cases are limited in the options for final outcome in the lower court. If the JO charges are sustained and not dismissed, cases must be transferred from Criminal Court either to Family Court or Supreme Court for final adjudication. The cases cannot be disposed at the misdemeanor level in Criminal Court because juveniles in these cases would no longer be JOs and therefore not subject to adult prosecution. Their only dispositions in Criminal Court can be dismissal or transfer to Family Court. 14 Referrals can only occur after the adult court concludes its case with a dismissal. Removals represent the transferring of active cases.

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

disposition in Criminal Court, either through a dismissal or by transfer to Family Court, is higher when the charge is more severe. The rate of transfer to the Supreme Court was ten percentage points higher (52%) for B-felony dockets than for C- or D-felony dockets (42%). The relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is particularly strong in Queens where seven of every ten B-felony docket was transferred to the upper court compared to only 45 percent of the C- or D-felony dockets. 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 2004 for JO cases was three, two appearances shorter than in 2003, but the same as in earlier reporting periods. Examination of length of case by borough shows no change between 2004 and 2003 in Brooklyn and Manhattan where the median number of appearances in lower court remained three. However, in the Bronx, the median decreased from five to three appearances and in Queens the median increased from five to seven appearances. The median number of appearances also decreased for three of the four release status categories. The median remained three appearances for cases in which the juveniles were held on bail at arraignment, the release status category with the largest number of cases. Citywide, length of case, in terms of number of appearances, was longer for JO cases with B-felony charges (4 appearances, down from a median of 5 appearances in 2003) than for those C- or D-felony charges (3 appearances, unchanged from 2003). The median number of days in Criminal Court was over a month citywide, twelve days longer than in 2003 which, in turn, was almost a week longer than in previous periods. There are, however, wide borough differences (Table 3d). The median number of days in Criminal Court was shortest in the Bronx (12, down from nearly 20 in 2003, but similar to the 10 days in 2002), followed by Brooklyn (nearly 26, up from 12 and 13 days, respectively, in 2003 and 2002), higher in Manhattan (34, up from 25 in 2004 and from 11 in 2002) and highest in Queens (nearly 70 days, up from 49 in 2003 and from 58 in 2002). 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. Citywide, the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court for disposed JO dockets where the juvenile secured release on recognizance (47 days) or on bail (22 days) at arraignment was more than three times longer than the number of days elapsed where the juvenile was held on bail (14 days) or remanded with no bail set (5 days) at

-32Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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, Bronx and Manhattan, for example, a median of five days elapse in lower court for juveniles who are detained on bail at arraignment, compared nearly ten weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, about a month elapses from arraignment to disposition in the Bronx, about six weeks in Brooklyn, more than two months in Queens and more than three months in Manhattan. Differences in length of case in Criminal Court by borough and by release status are so strong that comparisons of median number of days by charge severity primarily reflect the borough and release status composition at each charge level. Citywide, in this reporting period, C- or D-felony cases took a median of one week longer to reach disposition in Criminal Court than did B-felony cases (36 days, compared to 29 days). This is characteristic of the pattern of length of case by charge severity in Brooklyn (23 days for the B-felony category and 30 for the C- or D-felony category). The difference was far wider in the Bronx (5 days for B felonies and 24 days for C or D felonies) and Manhattan (26, compared to 87). In Queens, the B-felony cases took longer than those with C- or D-felony charges (82, compared to 68). In each borough except the Bronx, median length of case in the bail-set-and-not-made category was virtually the same for B felony and lesser severity cases.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=216)

Percentage

3.7 1.4

54.2

31.9

5.6 3.2

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=116)

4.3

54.3

25.9

3.4

12.1

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=151)

6.6 0.7

44.4

36.4

6.0

Att. Murder 2

Queens (N=132)

6.8

54.5

30.3

3.0 5.3

Assault 1

2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough:

Citywide (N=615)

Other*

5.2 0.7

51.9

31.5

4.4

6.3

-33-

216

100.0%

55 0 0 1

10 67 9 0 0 4 2 1 0 0

1 0 1

151

100.0%

36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

37.1%

6.6% 44.4% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

61.6%

0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

1.3%

116

30 0 0 3

5 63 4 0 3 6 0 0 2 0

0 0 0

100.0%

25.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%

28.4%

4.3% 54.3% 3.4% 0.0% 2.6% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

71.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

40 0 2 0

9 72 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

30.3% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

31.8%

6.8% 54.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

68.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

132

4 1 1

615

194 0 2 11

207

32 319 27 0 5 11 2 3 3 0

100.0%

31.5% 0.0% 0.3% 1.8%

33.7%

5.2% 51.9% 4.4% 0.0% 0.8% 1.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%

65.4%

0.7% 0.2% 0.2%

1.0%

CITYWIDE %

402

TOTAL

69 0 0 7

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

31.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

35.2%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.0%

1.4% 0.5% 0.0%

1.9%

3.7% 54.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

136

3 1 0

Brooklyn N %

8 117 7 0 1 1 0 2 0 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 2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-34-

[615]

100%

Citywide

[132]

Queens

[116]

Manhattan

[151]

Bronx

[216]

Brooklyn

(20.5)

50%

(22.4)

(1.7)

(21.9)

25%

(51.7)

(28.6)

(16.7)

(16.6)

(31.9)

50%

(48.9)

(46.6)

75%

(62.9)

(61.6)

Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(32.9)

Transfers To FC

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

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(35.2)

Dismissals

2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

-35-

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

20.9%

(N=402)

27.6%

B Felonies

51.5%

(N=6)

100.0%

Dismissals

A Felonies

Percent

Transfers to SC

31.4% 26.1%

(N=207)

C or D Felonies

42.5%

Transfers to FC

2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

28.6% 22.4%

(N=615)

All Charges

48.9%

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

-36-

-37-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

Queens %

1.9%

1.3%

0 4 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

136

63.0%

61.6%

71.6%

46 46 44 0

33.8% 33.8% 32.4% 0.0% 100.0%

13 55 25 0

14.0% 59.1% 26.9% 0.0% 100.0%

39 42 2 0

47.0% 50.6% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

35.2%

37.1%

23 21 32 0

30.3% 27.6% 42.1% 0.0% 100.0%

12 36 8 0

21.4% 64.3% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

216

100.0%

151

69 71 76 0

31.9% 32.9% 35.2% 0.0% 100.0%

25 93 33 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 6

1.0%

0 6 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

68.2%

402

65.4%

13 64 13 0

14.4% 71.1% 14.4% 0.0% 100.0%

111 207 84 0

27.6% 51.5% 20.9% 0.0% 100.0%

28.4%

31.8%

207

33.7%

21 12 0 0

63.6% 36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 19 14 0

21.4% 45.2% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

65 88 54 0

31.4% 42.5% 26.1% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

116

100.0%

132

100.0%

615

100.0%

16.6% 61.6% 21.9% 0.0% 100.0%

60 54 2 0

51.7% 46.6% 1.7% 0.0% 100.0%

22 83 27 0

16.7% 62.9% 20.5% 0.0% 100.0%

176 301 138 0

28.6% 48.9% 22.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

(N=6)

A Felonies

3.5

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

3.5

(N=400)

B Felonies

Remand

(N=209)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=615)

All Charges

4 3

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

-38-

-39-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 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

2.0

3.0

0 0 1 3

3.0 3.0

0 0 0 2

2.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 5

3.0 3.0

136

3.0

7.0

400

4.0

68 3 64 1

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

34 6 51 2

3.0 3.5 3.0 5.0

32 3 42 3

4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0

22 2 65 2

7.0 9.0 7.0 13.0

156 14 222 8

3.5 4.0 3.5 5.0

3.0

6.0

209

3.0

54 2 20 0

4.5 4.0 3.0 -

41 1 13 1

3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0

22 0 12 0

3.0 3.0 -

15 0 28 0

5.0 7.0 -

132 3 73 1

3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0

216

3.0

151

3.0

114

3.0

134

7.0

615

3.0

122 5 85 4

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

75 7 64 5

3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0

54 3 54 3

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

37 2 93 2

5.0 9.0 7.0 13.0

288 17 296 14

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

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

(N=400)

B Felonies

22.5

(N=6)

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

5.5

21 16 9

Remand

(N=209)

C or D Felonies

42.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=615)

All Charges

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

-40-

-41-

Table 3d Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

5.0

2.0

4.5

0 0 1 3

5.0 5.0

0 0 0 2

2.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 5

5.0 4.0

136

23.0

5.0

26.5

82.0

400

29.0

68 3 64 1

47.0 133.0 5.0 4.0

34 6 51 2

23.5 13.0 5.0 30.0

32 3 42 3

76.0 20.0 5.0 5.0

22 2 65 2

77.0 211.5 69.0 141.0

156 14 222 8

49.0 22.5 13.0 5.5

30.0

23.5

87.0

68.0

209

36.0

54 2 20 0

36.0 35.0 5.0 -

41 1 13 1

32.0 3.0 14.0 9.0

22 0 12 0

173.5 4.5 -

15 0 28 0

48.0 69.5 -

132 3 73 1

42.5 21.0 16.0 9.0

216

25.5

151

12.0

114

34.0

134

69.5

615

32.0

122 5 85 4

42.0 49.0 5.0 4.5

75 7 64 5

31.0 5.0 5.0 6.0

54 3 54 3

99.0 20.0 5.0 5.0

37 2 93 2

69.0 211.5 69.0 141.0

288 17 296 14

47.0 22.0 14.0 5.0

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

-42Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2004 (294) is higher than in recent years, but remains much lower than in 1999 (372). The increase is reflected in each of the boroughs but is greatest in the Bronx, which increased by 30 cases, and Brooklyn, which increased by 26 cases. The volume of new JO cases in Supreme Court increased by six cases in Manhattan and by nine in Queens. The current reporting period is the first year in which the Bronx accounts for more new cases in the upper court (82) than any other borough, but it is followed closely by Queens (81). Brooklyn and Manhattan follow with 68 and 63 new cases, respectively. 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 JO cases entering the upper court in 2004, as they did in the previous reporting period. Although second degree murder and attempted second degree murder charges account for less than two percent of all arrests during this reporting period, these charges account for seven percent of cases that reached the upper court in the period. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for less than a quarter of all juvenile arrests during 2004, but for 45 percent of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together account for a third of all JO arrests but more than six 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 2004 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, just as in 2003. In previous years, the plea rate at the first appearance has fluctuated from nearly a quarter in 2001, to fifteen percent in 2002, 18 percent in 2000 and 1999, but more than a quarter in 1998 and 1997. In 2004, 44 percent 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 dramatic. Queens again shows the highest proportion of cases where juveniles pled guilty (68%). However, the plea rate at the first appearance in the Bronx has decreased again (to 12% from 19%) while the rate of early pleas has increased markedly in Brooklyn (from 2% to 10%) and risen slightly in Manhattan (from 2% to 5%). 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 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.

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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%), 2003 (62%) and 2004 (68%). In the Bronx, however, the rate was far lower during those years (26%, 15%, 20%, 5%, 19% and 12%, respectively). Barely a handful of juveniles have pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance in any reporting period in Brooklyn or Manhattan. In 2004, seven juveniles in Brooklyn and three in Manhattan pled guilty at the first appearance in upper court. 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 54 percent of cases, compared to nearly 60 percent of the cases in the previous reporting period. The change reflects the decrease in the proportion of cases where the juveniles were released on ROR, which decreased five percentage points from 42 percent to 37 percent. The change in the citywide proportion of cases where the juveniles secured release on bail (17%) or in the proportion of cases where the juvenile was held, either on bail (20%) or with no bail set (26%), at this early stage of Supreme Court prosecution, was small. As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in nearly half of the cases with B-felony charges and in 64 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 (32%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (47%). The citywide decrease 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. The rate of ROR decreased by eleven, thirteen and 16 percentage points in Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan, but increased by 17 percentage points in the Bronx. The proportion released on ROR was highest in the Bronx (57%), followed by Queens (33%) and Brooklyn (30%), and was lowest in Manhattan (25%). The proportion of JO cases in which the juvenile is released on bail as of the first appearance in the upper court showed little change in Queens (23%) or the Bronx (14%) but decreased slightly to eight percent in Manhattan and increased by seven percentage points to 23 percent in Brooklyn. Together, juveniles were released on recognizance or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance in seven of every ten cases in the Bronx, and in more than half of the cases in Brooklyn (53%) and in Queens (56%). The finding concerning the particularly low combined rate of release in Manhattan in 2004 is in direct contrast with 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.

-44Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

the finding presented in the previous report where a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chance of release as of the first appearance in the upper court in Manhattan had increased from 33 percent in 2002 to 52 percent 2003. 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 2004, 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 16 days, and C- or D-felony cases took thirteen 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 about 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 increased to two weeks from nine days in 2003 and eight days in 2002. In the Bronx, the median number of days increased to 18 days from fifteen days in both 2003 and 2002. 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.

-45-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 45.2%

Murder 2 1.4% Other* 6.8%

Att. Murder 2 5.8%

Assault 1 7.5%

Robbery 2 33.3%

(N=294)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=68)

Percentage

4.4

10.3

38.2

27.9

8.8

10.3

Murder 2

6.1 1.2

41.5

35.4

7.3

8.5

Manhattan (N=63) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=82)

Att. Murder 2

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

1.6

54.0

34.9

6.3 3.2

Assault 1

2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=81)

Other*

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

4.9

48.1

34.6

9.9

2.5

-46-

100.0%

29 0 0 1

5 34 6 0 0 4 2 0 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

35.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

36.6%

6.1% 41.5% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

62.2%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1.2%

22 0 0 0

1 34 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

34.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

34.9%

1.6% 54.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

65.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

28 0 0 1

4 39 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

34.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

35.8%

4.9% 48.1% 9.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

64.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

4 0 0

294

98 0 2 3

103

17 133 22 1 2 8 2 0 2 0

100.0%

33.3% 0.0% 0.7% 1.0%

35.0%

5.8% 45.2% 7.5% 0.3% 0.7% 2.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

63.6%

1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

1.4%

CITYWIDE %

187

TOTAL

19 0 2 1

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

27.9% 0.0% 2.9% 1.5%

32.4%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.2%

4.4% 0.0% 0.0%

4.4%

10.3% 38.2% 8.8% 0.0% 2.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

7 26 6 0 2 1 0 0 1 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-47-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=68)

Percentage

10.3

60.3

2.9

23.5

2.9

Bronx (N=82)

12.2

37.8

1.2 7.3

37.8

3.7

Manhattan (N=63)

4.8

63.5

30.2

1.6

Disposition Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Transfer To Family Court Continued

Queens (N=81)

67.9

19.8

2.5

9.9

Dismissed Bench Warrant

2004 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=294)

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

25.5

43.5

1.0 2.7

25.2

2.0

-48-

-49-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2004 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 %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

4.4%

1.2%

0 2 0 0 1 0

0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 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

63.2%

62.2%

65.1%

64.2%

187

63.6%

3 28 0 2 10 0

7.0% 65.1% 0.0% 4.7% 23.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 20 5 0 16 2

15.7% 39.2% 9.8% 0.0% 31.4% 3.9% 100.0%

2 28 0 0 10 1

4.9% 68.3% 0.0% 0.0% 24.4% 2.4% 100.0%

33 12 1 0 6 0

63.5% 23.1% 1.9% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 100.0%

46 88 6 2 42 3

24.6% 47.1% 3.2% 1.1% 22.5% 1.6% 100.0%

32.4%

36.6%

34.9%

35.8%

103

35.0%

4 11 0 0 5 2

18.2% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.7% 9.1% 100.0%

2 11 1 1 14 1

6.7% 36.7% 3.3% 3.3% 46.7% 3.3% 100.0%

1 12 0 0 9 0

4.5% 54.5% 0.0% 0.0% 40.9% 0.0% 100.0%

22 4 1 0 2 0

75.9% 13.8% 3.4% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 100.0%

29 38 2 1 30 3

28.2% 36.9% 1.9% 1.0% 29.1% 2.9% 100.0%

100.0%

294

100.0%

7 41 0 2 16 2

10.3% 60.3% 0.0% 2.9% 23.5% 2.9% 100.0%

10 31 6 1 31 3

12.2% 37.8% 7.3% 1.2% 37.8% 3.7% 100.0%

3 40 0 0 19 1

4.8% 63.5% 0.0% 0.0% 30.2% 1.6% 100.0%

55 16 2 0 8 0

67.9% 19.8% 2.5% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 100.0%

75 128 8 3 74 6

25.5% 43.5% 2.7% 1.0% 25.2% 2.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

1.4%

0 2 0 0 2 0

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=60)

Percentage

30.0

23.3

26.7

20.0

56.9

13.9

20.8

8.3

Manhattan (N=60)

25.0

8.3

23.3

43.3

33.3

22.7

12.0

32.0

Remand

Queens (N=75)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=72)

ROR

2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=267)

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

37.1

17.2

20.2

25.5

-50-

-51-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

Queens %

5.0%

1.4%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

63.3%

61.1%

65.0%

6 10 14 8

15.8% 26.3% 36.8% 21.1% 100.0%

21 7 14 2

47.7% 15.9% 31.8% 4.5% 100.0%

9 2 9 19

23.1% 5.1% 23.1% 48.7% 100.0%

31.7%

37.5%

12 4 2 1

63.2% 21.1% 10.5% 5.3% 100.0%

19 3 1 4

70.4% 11.1% 3.7% 14.8% 100.0%

100.0%

18 14 16 12

30.0% 23.3% 26.7% 20.0% 100.0%

41 10 15 6

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.5%

1 0 0 3

25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 100.0%

62.7%

168

62.9%

17 11 5 14

36.2% 23.4% 10.6% 29.8% 100.0%

53 30 42 43

31.5% 17.9% 25.0% 25.6% 100.0%

35.0%

37.3%

35.6%

6 3 5 7

28.6% 14.3% 23.8% 33.3% 100.0%

8 6 4 10

28.6% 21.4% 14.3% 35.7% 100.0%

45 16 12 22

47.4% 16.8% 12.6% 23.2% 100.0%

100.0%

267

100.0%

56.9% 13.9% 20.8% 8.3% 100.0%

15 5 14 26

25.0% 8.3% 23.3% 43.3% 100.0%

25 17 9 24

33.3% 22.7% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0%

99 46 54 68

37.1% 17.2% 20.2% 25.5% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

B Felonies (N=162)

(N=4)

Remand

(N=93)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2004 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

(N=259)

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:

-52-

-53-

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 2004 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

23.0

4.0

23.0

0 0 0 3

23.0

1 0 0 0

4.0 -

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 3

4.0 23.0

31.5

18.0

11.0

0.0

162

16.5

6 10 14 8

19.5 27.5 29.0 40.0

20 6 13 2

12.0 30.5 21.0 16.0

9 2 8 19

31.0 14.5 6.5 7.0

17 10 5 13

0.0 6.5 22.0 0.0

52 28 40 42

9.0 19.0 22.0 7.0

20.0

24.0

14.0

0.0

13.0

12 3 1 1

18.5 23.0 32.0 29.0

19 3 1 4

15.0 34.0 37.0 14.5

6 3 5 7

24.0 21.0 14.0 11.0

8 6 4 10

0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0

45 15 11 22

15.0 17.0 14.0 1.0

26.0

18.0

14.0

0.0

259

15.0

18 13 15 12

19.0 27.0 30.0 35.0

40 9 14 6

13.0 31.0 21.5 14.5

15 5 13 26

31.0 15.0 7.0 8.0

25 16 9 23

0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0

98 43 51 67

12.0 18.0 22.0 7.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 35 cases: 7 dismissals and 28 cases missing release status

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 244 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2004, slightly more than the 229 disposed in 2003, and more than in any recent reporting period. Borough comparisons of the volume of cases disposed in 2004 and 2003 in the upper courts show an increase in the Bronx (15 dispositions) and Queens (10 dispositions) and a decrease in Brooklyn (7 dispositions) and Manhattan (3 dispositions). Queens again accounts for the largest proportion of disposed cases (32%). However, Queens is followed by the Bronx (27%, up from 22%), which had shown the lowest volume in 2003, and then Manhattan (22%, down from 24%) and Brooklyn (19%, down from 24%). which accounted for about the same proportion in 2002). 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, but it was more common in 2003 than it was in 2004. More than four of every ten JO cases involved a charge of first degree robbery in 2004, compared to 54 percent in 2003, and first and second degree robbery together account for three quarters of dispositions in 2004, compared to 79 percent during the previous period. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault, which accounts for nine percent of Supreme Court dispositions. A-felony charges account for less than one percent of disposed cases (only one case in 2004), Bfelony charges account for nearly two thirds of 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 at disposition ranges from only 30 percent in Brooklyn to 38 percent in Manhattan and 46 and 48 percent in the Bronx and Queens, respectively. Borough differences in the proportion of cases disposed at the second degree robbery level are nearly as wide: A quarter of Bronx cases were charged with second degree robbery at disposition, compared to about a third of those disposed in Brooklyn or Queens, and 42 percent of those disposed in Manhattan. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first or second degree robbery charges ranges from 62 percent in Brooklyn and 71 percent in the Bronx to 79 percent in Manhattan and 84 percent in Queens. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first degree assault, which accounts for about nine percent of disposed cases citywide, but fifteen percent of Brooklyn cases. The proportion of JO cases disposed in Supreme Court with first degree robbery charges was twelve percentage points lower in 2004 than in 2003, and the proportion with second degree robbery charges at disposition was eight percentage points higher. The decrease in disposition first degree robbery charges at disposition was only about ten percentage points in the Bronx and Queens, thirteen percentage points in Brooklyn, but 19 percentage points in Manhattan. The increase in JO cases disposed at the second degree robbery level was smaller in Queens (3 percentage points) than in the other boroughs (9 to 11 percentage points). Considered together, the proportion of cases

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

disposed with any robbery charges changed little in Brooklyn and the Bronx, decreasing by one percentage points, but dropped by six percentage points in Queens and by eight percentage points in Manhattan. The proportion of cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level was six percentage points higher in 2004 than in 2003, reflecting the increase in second degree robbery disposition charges. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high: Overall, 85 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, compared to 90 percent in 2003, 93 percent in 2002 and 88 percent in 2001. The conviction rates were higher in Queens (96%) than in the Bronx (83%), Brooklyn (79%) or Manhattan (76%). The citywide decrease in the rate of conviction is not evident in all of the boroughs. The rate of conviction increased in Queens, decreased by five percentage points in the Bronx, decreased by eight percentage points in Brooklyn, and decreased sharply, by 17 percentage points, in Manhattan. Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were slightly less likely to show convictions (81%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (87%). The decrease in conviction rates was greater at the C- or D- felony level (from to 88% in 2003 to 81% in 2004), than at the B-felony level (from 91% down to 87%). However, as discussed above, there were more cases disposed with C- or D-felony charges in 2004 (86) than in 2003 (67 cases). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 56 percent of JO cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. This is lower than the 61 percent released at disposition in 2003, and lower than the 59 percent 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 less likely to secure release on recognizance (37%, down from 45% in 2003 but up from 31% in 2002), and slightly more likely to post bail (18%, up from 16% in 2003 but down from 28% in 2002). 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 JO cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were again extremely wide. In 2004, the higher rates of release at disposition were in Brooklyn and the Bronx (both 63%). However, the Brooklyn release rate was similar to the rate in 2003 (57%) while the rate of release in the Bronx was markedly higher than in 2003 (48%). More than half of the juveniles in JO cases disposed in Queens in 2004 were released, down from two thirds in 2003. However, the most dramatic change occurred in Manhattan, the borough with the highest rate of release at JO disposition in 2003 (70%), which shows the lowest rate of release in 2004 (44%). The picture is somewhat different, however, when ROR rates at dispositions are considered. Nearly half of the juveniles were released on recognizance at disposition in the Bronx in 2004, compared to only about a third of similar juveniles in the three remaining boroughs. This is a slight increase in the ROR rate at disposition in

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

the Bronx (up from 43%) but a ten to fourteen percentage point decrease in the other boroughs. In 2004, rates of release on bail at disposition did not parallel ROR rates in the sense that the three boroughs that show a third of the juveniles RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d at disposition show very different rates of release on bail. Nearly a third of Brooklyn juveniles were released on bail at disposition in 2004, up from only 17 percent during the previous reporting period, compared to 18 percent of juveniles in Queens dispositions (about the same as in the previous year) and only ten percent in Manhattan (up from 4% in 2004). In the Bronx, the borough with the highest ROR rate at disposition and the only borough that showed an increase in ROR rate, the juveniles were released on bail in fifteen percent of cases, ten percentage points higher than during the previous year. 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 60 percent, ranging between 59 percent and 79 percent in previous reporting periods. The proportion of juvenile cases that reach disposition in a JO Part varied substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (100%), followed by Brooklyn (81%) and the Bronx (56%), but only about 23 percent in Queens. The lower proportion in Queens seems to reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in non-JO Parts. As noted earlier, Queens makes greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. The 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. In the early years of this reporting series, conviction rates tended to be higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts. During this reporting period, the citywide conviction rate was higher for the non-JO Parts (88%) than for the JO Parts (83%). The volume of dispositions separated by JO versus non-JO Part and by borough is too low to permit conclusions as to whether the observed citywide difference in conviction rates might be attributable to the type of court part, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. 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 non-JO 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 (5) was three appearances shorter than in the previous reporting period (compared to a median of 7 in 2002) and the median number of days (78) was nearly three weeks longer than in the previous year (the same as in 2002). In general, the median number of appearances and the median number of days were longer for JO cases with B-felony disposition charges (6 appearances and 82 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (5 appearances and 70 days).

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 again took an average of only one appearance to reach disposition in Queens (where more than half of the cases were disposed at the first appearance in Supreme Court, Exhibit 4B), compared to between seven and twelve 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 decreased from nine back to seven in Brooklyn and down to seven from eleven in the Bronx. In Manhattan the median number of appearances to disposition increased to twelve from eleven in 2003 and from eight in 2002. 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 80 days in Brooklyn, 140 days in the Bronx and 142 days in Manhattan. The average number of days decreased by almost four weeks in Manhattan, four weeks in the Bronx and about six weeks in Brooklyn, but remained the same in this reporting period as in previous years in Queens. 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, 38 days) reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were released on bail (5 appearance, 77 days) or those with juveniles who were held on bail (7 appearances, 110 days) or who were remanded with no bail set (6 appearances, 78 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. Cases in the JO Parts in Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens took a median of seven appearances to reach disposition, compared to thirteen appearances in the JO Part in Manhattan. The seven appearances to disposition in the JO Parts took 88 days in Brooklyn, 94 days in Queens,

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

and 187 days in the Bronx, while the thirteen appearances in the JO Part in Manhattan took a median of 145 days.

-59-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 41.8%

Att. Murder 2 6.1% Murder 2 0.4% Assault 1 9.0%

Other* 9.4%

Robbery 2 33.2%

(N=244)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=47)

Percentage

2.1

12.8

29.8

31.9

14.9

8.5

Murder 2

1.9

37.7

41.5

3.8

15.1

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=53) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

9.2

46.2

24.6

7.7

12.3

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=65)

Att. Murder 2

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Queens (N=79)

Other*

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

2.5

48.1

35.4

10.1

3.8

-60-

100.0%

16 0 0 2

6 30 5 0 0 4 2 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1%

27.7%

9.2% 46.2% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

72.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

22 0 1 0

1 20 2 0 1 4 0 2 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

41.5% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%

43.4%

1.9% 37.7% 3.8% 0.0% 1.9% 7.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%

56.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

28 0 0 1

2 38 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

35.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%

36.7%

2.5% 48.1% 10.1% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

63.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1 0 0

244

81 0 2 3

15 102 22 2 2 9 2 2 1 0

100.0%

33.2% 0.0% 0.8% 1.2%

35.2%

6.1% 41.8% 9.0% 0.8% 0.8% 3.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0%

64.3%

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0.4%

CITYWIDE %

157

TOTAL

15 0 1 0

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

31.9% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0%

34.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.8%

2.1% 0.0% 0.0%

2.1%

12.8% 29.8% 14.9% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

6 14 7 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=47)

Percentage

78.7

21.3

Manhattan (N=53)

75.5

24.5

Queens (N=79)

96.2

3.8

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=65)

83.1

16.9

Disposition Conviction Other*

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=244)

84.8

15.2

-62-

-63-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

2.1%

Conviction Other Subtotal

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

63.8%

72.3%

56.6%

Conviction Other Subtotal

23 7

76.7% 23.3% 100.0%

40 7

85.1% 14.9% 100.0%

25 5

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

34.0%

27.7%

13 3

81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

14 4

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

100.0%

37 10

78.7% 21.3% 100.0%

54 11

ALL CHARGES: Conviction Other TOTAL

0.0%

Queens %

Conviction Other Subtotal

A FELONIES:

C OR D FELONIES:

0.0%

Manhattan N %

0.4%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

63.3%

157

64.3%

48 2

96.0% 4.0% 100.0%

136 21

86.6% 13.4% 100.0%

43.4%

36.7%

35.2%

15 8

65.2% 34.8% 100.0%

28 1

96.6% 3.4% 100.0%

70 16

81.4% 18.6% 100.0%

100.0%

244

100.0%

83.1% 16.9% 100.0%

40 13

75.5% 24.5% 100.0%

76 3

96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

207 37

84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

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=38)

Percentage

31.6

21.1

15.8

48.1

14.8

37.0

Manhattan (N=39)

33.3

10.3

46.2

34.2

18.4

3.9

43.4

Remand

Queens (N=76)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=54)

ROR

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=207)

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

37.2

18.4

7.2

37.2

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

2.6%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

65.8%

74.1%

64.1%

6 9 5 5

24.0% 36.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

20 5 0 15

50.0% 12.5% 0.0% 37.5% 100.0%

8 2 2 13

32.0% 8.0% 8.0% 52.0% 100.0%

31.6%

25.9%

6 3 3 0

50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 3 0 5

42.9% 21.4% 0.0% 35.7% 100.0%

100.0%

12 12 8 6

31.6% 31.6% 21.1% 15.8% 100.0%

26 8 0 20

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64.5%

139

67.1%

18 8 2 21

36.7% 16.3% 4.1% 42.9% 100.0%

52 24 9 54

37.4% 17.3% 6.5% 38.8% 100.0%

35.9%

35.5%

32.4%

5 2 2 5

35.7% 14.3% 14.3% 35.7% 100.0%

8 6 1 12

29.6% 22.2% 3.7% 44.4% 100.0%

25 14 6 22

37.3% 20.9% 9.0% 32.8% 100.0%

100.0%

207

100.0%

48.1% 14.8% 0.0% 37.0% 100.0%

13 4 4 18

33.3% 10.3% 10.3% 46.2% 100.0%

26 14 3 33

34.2% 18.4% 3.9% 43.4% 100.0%

77 38 15 77

37.2% 18.4% 7.2% 37.2% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Includes juveniles who are convicted and awaiting sentencing as well as those whose cases are transferred to Family Court. Excludes 23 cases that were dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death, as well as 14 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=47)

Percentage

80.9

19.1

Bronx (N=65)

56.9

43.1

Manhattan (N=53)

100.0

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=79)

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

22.8

77.2

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

Citywide (N=244)

59.8

40.2

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=157)

3.2

(N=1)

9.7

A Felonies

6.3 7.4

87.1

JO Part Non-JO Part

86.3

JO Part Non-JO Part

50.0

100.0

Percent

Convicted

2.0

22.0

75.0

5.6 5.6

(N=86)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

76.0

88.9

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

11.6 5.5

87.8

8.2 4.1

(N=244)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

82.9

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

-67-

-68Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

2.1%

0.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.4%

0 0 0

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

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

0 0 0 30

63.8%

72.3%

56.6%

63.3%

157

64.3%

21 4 1 26

80.8% 15.4% 3.8% 100.0%

25 1 1 27

92.6% 3.7% 3.7% 100.0%

25 2 3 30

83.3% 6.7% 10.0% 100.0%

11 0 1 12

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

82 7 6 95

86.3% 7.4% 6.3% 100.0%

2 2 0 4

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0 5 20

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

37 0 1 38

97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 100.0%

54 2 6 62

87.1% 3.2% 9.7% 100.0%

34.0%

27.7%

43.4%

36.7%

35.2%

9 1 1 11

81.8% 9.1% 9.1% 100.0%

8 0 2 10

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

15 0 8 23

65.2% 0.0% 34.8% 100.0%

6 0 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

38 1 11 50

76.0% 2.0% 22.0% 100.0%

4 1 0 5

80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 1 8

75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0%

0 0 0

22 0 1 23

95.7% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0%

32 2 2 36

88.9% 5.6% 5.6% 100.0%

100.0%

244

100.0%

31 5 2 38

81.6% 13.2% 5.3% 100.0%

33 1 3 37

89.2% 2.7% 8.1% 100.0%

40 2 11 53

75.5% 3.8% 20.8% 100.0%

17 0 1 18

94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 100.0%

121 8 17 146

82.9% 5.5% 11.6% 100.0%

6 3 0 9

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

21 1 6 28

75.0% 3.6% 21.4% 100.0%

0 0 0

59 0 2 61

96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0%

86 4 8 98

87.8% 4.1% 8.2% 100.0%

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

B Felonies (N=144)

(N=2)

9 5

Remand

(N=78)

C or D Felonies

4.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

27.5

Median Number of Days

ROR

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=224)

All Charges

7 5.5

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 2004 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

7.0

0.0

48.0

27.5

0 0 0 1

7.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

48.0

0 0 0 2

27.5

7.0

13.0

1.0

144

6.0

4 10 8 5

5.5 5.0 7.0 11.0

18 5 11 7

3.0 7.0 9.0 14.0

12 2 5 12

16.0 9.5 14.0 7.0

17 8 6 14

1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0

51 25 30 38

3.0 5.0 9.0 5.0

5.0

6.5

11.0

1.0

5.0

7 4 2 0

3.0 4.0 7.0 -

6 4 2 4

7.5 6.5 5.5 12.0

5 4 4 8

13.0 16.0 5.0 9.0

8 6 4 10

1.0 1.0 13.0 1.0

26 18 12 22

4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0

7.0

12.0

1.0

224

5.0

11 14 10 6

4.0 4.0 7.0 10.0

24 9 13 11

4.5 7.0 9.0 14.0

17 6 9 20

15.0 12.0 13.0 8.5

25 14 10 25

1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0

77 43 42 62

4.0 5.0 7.0 5.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 20 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

200

300

400

500

600

B Felonies (N=144)

(N=2)

119.5 75

90 43.5

Remand

(N=78)

C or D Felonies

80.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

518

Median Number of Days

ROR

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

110.5 77.5

(N=224)

All Charges

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 2004 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

167.0

0.0

869.0

518.0

0 0 0 1

167.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

869.0

0 0 0 2

518.0

102.0

121.0

168.0

0.0

144

81.5

4 10 8 5

78.5 93.0 98.0 154.0

18 5 11 7

42.0 187.0 121.0 371.0

12 2 5 12

231.5 131.5 174.0 85.0

17 8 6 14

0.0 0.0 82.0 0.0

51 25 30 38

35.0 77.0 119.5 75.0

36.0

150.5

133.0

0.0

70.0

7 4 2 0

17.0 38.5 73.5 -

6 4 2 4

190.0 162.0 125.0 170.5

5 4 4 8

112.0 182.0 72.0 148.0

8 6 4 10

0.0 0.0 185.0 0.0

26 18 12 22

48.0 80.5 90.0 43.5

80.0

140.0

142.5

0.0

224

78.5

11 14 10 6

21.0 50.5 93.0 160.5

24 9 13 11

66.5 170.0 121.0 220.0

17 6 9 20

203.0 180.5 145.0 113.5

25 14 10 25

0.0 0.0 82.0 0.0

77 43 42 62

38.0 77.0 110.5 77.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 20 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=157)

(N=1)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=86)

C or D Felonies

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=224)

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 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

7.0

1 0

7.0 -

0 0

1 0

7.0 -

7.0

13.0

1.0

157

6.0

26 4

7.0 1.0

27 20

8.0 1.0

30 0

13.0 -

12 38

6.5 1.0

95 62

9.0 1.0

3.5

6.5

9.0

1.0

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

11 5

4.0 1.0

10 8

6.5 6.5

23 0

9.0 -

6 23

10.5 1.0

50 36

7.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

5.0

7.0

13.0

1.0

244

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

38 9

7.0 1.0

37 28

7.0 2.5

53 0

13.0 -

18 61

7.0 1.0

146 98

8.0 1.0

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

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

100

150

200

B Felonies (N=157)

(N=1)

145

A Felonies

167

Median Number of Days

(N=86)

C or D Felonies

123

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=244)

All Charges

137

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 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

167.0

1 0

167.0 -

0 0

1 0

167.0 -

97.5

103.0

180.0

0.0

157

83.0

26 4

112.0 0.0

27 20

216.0 0.0

30 0

180.0 -

12 38

82.0 0.0

95 62

145.0 0.0

28.5

150.5

133.0

0.0

59.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

11 5

36.0 0.0

10 8

162.0 119.5

23 0

133.0 -

6 23

192.0 0.0

50 36

123.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

77.0

121.0

145.0

0.0

244

76.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

38 9

88.5 0.0

37 28

187.0 4.0

53 0

145.0 -

18 61

94.5 0.0

146 98

137.0 0.0

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

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

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 227 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2004 were for juvenile offenders slightly higher than the 207 sentences in 2003. More JO cases reached sentencing in two boroughs, but fewer reached sentencing in the others. The increase in the volume of sentences was greatest in the Bronx, where 29 more JO cases reached sentencing in 2004 (65) than in 2003 (36). The volume of sentences also increased sharply in Queens (from 54 to 77). The decreases were smaller: only 38 cases reached sentencing in Brooklyn (down from 55) and only 47 reached sentencing in Manhattan (down from 62). The borough composition of the sentences has thereby shifted again to some extent. Overall, more than half of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 2004 were custodial. This includes either imprisonment only (41%) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (11%). This is higher than the rate in 2003 (46%, with 39% sentenced to imprisonment only and 7% receiving a “split” sentence). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles received were smaller than in previous years. Sentences for juveniles in Queens (57%) and the Bronx (55%) were more likely to be incarcerative than in Manhattan (47%) or Brooklyn (45%). In 2003, 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%). During this reporting period, probation with no incarceration was most common in Brooklyn (55%, up from 40%) and Manhattan (53%, down from (74%), followed by the Bronx (45%, up from 19%) and were lowest in Queens (43%, down from 61%). In all previous reporting periods, the likelihood of a custodial sanction was far higher for the juveniles convicted at the B-felony level than for those convicted at lesser severity levels. However, in 2004, as shown in Table 6a, the proportion of incarcerative sentences was lower among B-felony JO cases (50%) than for juveniles in cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (57%). In 2003, more than half of the juveniles convicted of a B felony but only a third of those convicted of lesser charges received a sentence that included imprisonment. Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2004 in the JO Parts to those given in non-JO Parts, citywide, and for different conviction-charge severities. Sentences for juveniles convicted in JO Parts were much more likely to require straight imprisonment (46%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (34%). The difference was even wider in 2003 when 44 percent of sentences in JO Parts but only 24 percent of those in non-JO Parts were straight imprisonment sentences. If ‘split’ sentences, those requiring both imprisonment and probation, are also considered, the difference between JO and non-JO Parts in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences is very small (53% in JO Parts, compared to 51% in non-JO Parts) during this reporting period, but the difference was wider in 2003 (51% in JO Parts and 35% in non-JO Parts).

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

Exhibit 6B.2 presents similar information without regard to charge, for each borough, and citywide. However, the low volume of cases in particular borough-court part categories makes it difficult to draw conclusions. The citywide sentencing difference between JO and non-JO Parts seems to reflect the use of JO Parts in the boroughs and the sentencing pattern within the boroughs rather than 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 a fifth of all sentences in JO cases in 2004 but a third of all sentences in a JO Part in 2004. Further, Queens juveniles account for a third of all sentences in JO cases citywide in 2004. In Queens, however, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences account for the majority (66%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2004. 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 part-charge-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 86 percent of the sentences during the reporting period, a higher proportion than in recent report periods. Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were a little more likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (88%, compared to 84%). There was less borough variation in granting YO status than in previous reporting periods. The proportion of cases in which the juvenile was granted YO status differed by only four percentage points (from 84% to 88%) across the boroughs. 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 2004 for each of the conviction-charge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2004 appeared a median of nine times in Supreme Court, and a median of 182 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was longer by four appearances and more than two months. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (4 appearances, 58 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of nine appearance in Brooklyn (146 days), nine appearances in the Bronx (257 days) and 18 appearances (462 days) in Manhattan. The median 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, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

number of appearances increased by one appearance and three days in Queens. In the Bronx, the median number of appearances decreased by five appearances and one day. The Brooklyn median length-of-case numbers decreased by four appearances and more than three months. In Manhattan, the median number of appearances decreased by almost four appearances, but the number of days decreased by only one week. 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. The median number of appearances and median number of days is much higher for those sentenced in the JO Parts (12 appearances and 273 days) than for those sentenced in other parts (4 appearances and 50 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 twelve appearances and 282 days in the JO Parts and three appearances and about 55 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 (12 appearances and 282 days) were similar to those for juveniles convicted at the C- or Dfelony level (11 appearances and 268 days). In the non-JO Parts, B-felony cases took a median of only three appearances and 55 days, compared to four appearances and 47 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.

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

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 more than twice as long as the citywide average, taking an average of 32 days citywide but ten weeks in Queens (Table 3d). For the juveniles who were held on bail, the median number of days in Queens is nearly five times longer (69 days, compared to only 14 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 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=38)

Percentage

44.7

55.3

Bronx (N=65)

47.7

7.7

44.6

Imprisonment

Manhattan (N=47)

46.8

53.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=77)

Probation

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

31.2

26.0

42.9

Citywide (N=227)

41.4

11.0

47.6

-81-

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

73.7%

73.8%

55.3%

66.2%

153

67.4%

13 0 15 0

46.4% 0.0% 53.6% 0.0% 100.0%

23 3 22 0

47.9% 6.3% 45.8% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 17 0

34.6% 0.0% 65.4% 0.0% 100.0%

15 14 22 0

29.4% 27.5% 43.1% 0.0% 100.0%

60 17 76 0

39.2% 11.1% 49.7% 0.0% 100.0%

26.3%

26.2%

44.7%

33.8%

32.6%

4 0 6 0

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 2 7 0

47.1% 11.8% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 8 0

61.9% 0.0% 38.1% 0.0% 100.0%

9 6 11 0

34.6% 23.1% 42.3% 0.0% 100.0%

34 8 32 0

45.9% 10.8% 43.2% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

227

100.0%

17 0 21 0

44.7% 0.0% 55.3% 0.0% 100.0%

31 5 29 0

47.7% 7.7% 44.6% 0.0% 100.0%

22 0 25 0

46.8% 0.0% 53.2% 0.0% 100.0%

24 20 33 0

31.2% 26.0% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

94 25 108 0

41.4% 11.0% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

7.6

48.9

16.4

17.2

Non-JO Part

37.9

(N=74)

JO Part

6.7

42.2

44.8

C or D Felonies

11.2

51.1

(N=153)

Non-JO Part

32.8

50.8

Sentence Imp. and Probation

B Felonies

JO Part

43.5

Percent

Imprisonment

Probation

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

7.3

46.7

16.7

Non-JO Part

34.4

48.9

(N=227)

All Felonies

JO Part

46.0

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

-83-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=9)

(N=29)

55.6

44.4

JO Part

Brooklyn

41.4

58.6

Percentage

(N=43)

JO Part

36.4

9.1

54.5

(N=22)

Non JO Part

Bronx

53.5

7.0

39.5

Imprisonment

(N=47)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

46.8

53.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=18)

JO Part

30.5

22.0

47.5

(N=59)

Non JO Part

Queens

33.3

38.9

27.8

Probation

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

34.4

16.7

48.9

(N=137) (N=90)

JO Part

Citywide

46.0

7.3

46.7

-84-

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

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

73.7%

73.8%

55.3%

66.2%

153

67.4%

11 0 12 0 23

47.8% 0.0% 52.2% 0.0% 100.0%

16 2 12 0 30

53.3% 6.7% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 17 0 26

34.6% 0.0% 65.4% 0.0% 100.0%

4 5 4 0 13

30.8% 38.5% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

40 7 45 0 92

43.5% 7.6% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 10 0 18

38.9% 5.6% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

11 9 18 0 38

28.9% 23.7% 47.4% 0.0% 100.0%

20 10 31 0 61

32.8% 16.4% 50.8% 0.0% 100.0%

26.3%

26.2%

44.7%

33.8%

32.6%

1 0 5 0 6

16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 5 0 13

53.8% 7.7% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 8 0 21

61.9% 0.0% 38.1% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 1 0 5

40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 3 19 0 45

51.1% 6.7% 42.2% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 1 0 4

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 2 0 4

25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

7 4 10 0 21

33.3% 19.0% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

11 5 13 0 29

37.9% 17.2% 44.8% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

227

100.0%

12 0 17 0 29

41.4% 0.0% 58.6% 0.0% 100.0%

23 3 17 0 43

53.5% 7.0% 39.5% 0.0% 100.0%

22 0 25 0 47

46.8% 0.0% 53.2% 0.0% 100.0%

6 7 5 0 18

33.3% 38.9% 27.8% 0.0% 100.0%

63 10 64 0 137

46.0% 7.3% 46.7% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 4 0 9

55.6% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

8 2 12 0 22

36.4% 9.1% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

18 13 28 0 59

30.5% 22.0% 47.5% 0.0% 100.0%

31 15 44 0 90

34.4% 16.7% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12.2

16.4 11.6

13.8

(N=72)

Non-JO Part

86.2

C or D Felonies

JO Part

88.4

(N=151)

Non-JO Part

83.6

Not Youthful Offender

B Felonies

JO Part

87.8

Percent

Youthful Offender

2004 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

15.6

Non-JO Part

84.4

(N=223)

All Felonies

12.0

JO Part

88.0

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

-86-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=9)

(N=28)

77.8

22.2

JO Part

Brooklyn

89.3

10.7

Percentage

(N=42)

JO Part

86.4

(N=22)

Non JO Part

Bronx

83.3

16.7

13.6

(N=45)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

86.7

13.3

Non JO Part

84.7

15.3

(N=18) (N=59)

JO Part

Queens

100.0

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

88.0

12.0

Non JO Part

84.4

15.6

(N=133) (N=90)

JO Part

Citywide

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

-87-

-88-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

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

73.0%

73.4%

57.8%

66.2%

151

67.7%

19 3 22

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

25 4 29

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

22 4 26

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

13 0 13

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

79 11 90

87.8% 12.2% 100.0%

3 2 5

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

15 3 18

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

0 0

33 5 38

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

51 10 61

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

27.0%

26.6%

42.2%

33.8%

32.3%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 3 13

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

17 2 19

89.5% 10.5% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

38 5 43

88.4% 11.6% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

17 4 21

81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

25 4 29

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

100.0%

223

100.0%

25 3 28

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

35 7 42

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

39 6 45

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

18 0 18

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

117 16 133

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

7 2 9

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

19 3 22

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

0 0

50 9 59

84.7% 15.3% 100.0%

76 14 90

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

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

(N=72)

C or D Felonies

(N=153)

14.5

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

8.5

Remand

(N=225)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were no cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-89-

-90-

Table 6d Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

12.5

9.0

19.0

4.0

153

9.0

12 7 3 6

13.5 5.0 13.0 10.5

23 6 0 19

8.0 8.5 15.0

14 4 2 6

19.0 10.0 31.0 31.0

19 10 1 21

5.0 3.0 27.0 4.0

68 27 6 52

9.0 8.0 24.0 9.0

6.0

9.0

17.0

4.0

8.0

3 3 4 0

7.0 7.0 7.0 -

7 2 2 6

8.0 8.0 14.5 10.5

6 1 3 10

37.5 15.0 24.0 12.0

6 5 1 13

5.0 3.0 2.0 4.0

22 11 10 29

8.0 7.0 14.5 9.0

9.0

18.5

4.0

225

9.0

15 10 7 6

12.0 6.0 7.0 10.5

30 8 2 25

8.0 8.5 14.5 11.0

20 5 5 16

20.0 10.0 29.0 17.5

25 15 2 34

5.0 3.0 14.5 4.0

90 38 16 81

8.5 7.0 16.0 9.0

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

192

(N=72)

C or D Felonies

130.5

(N=153)

154.5

233.5

B Felonies

168

252.5

Median Number of Days

182

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

185

Remand

(N=225)

All Charges

161

237

157

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were no cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

ROR

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

-91-

-92-

Table 6e Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

184.0

258.5

462.0

62.0

153

182.0

12 7 3 6

292.5 71.0 210.0 184.5

23 6 0 19

182.0 267.0 321.0

14 4 2 6

423.5 282.0 787.5 734.0

19 10 1 21

76.0 66.0 133.0 34.0

68 27 6 52

192.0 168.0 252.5 154.5

91.0

254.0

468.5

49.0

169.0

3 3 4 0

43.0 85.0 109.5 -

7 2 2 6

192.0 233.5 280.0 261.0

6 1 3 10

827.0 273.0 574.0 360.0

6 5 1 13

72.5 65.0 29.0 29.0

22 11 10 29

130.5 91.0 233.5 182.0

146.0

257.0

462.0

58.5

225

182.0

15 10 7 6

148.0 81.0 113.0 184.5

30 8 2 25

187.0 267.0 280.0 270.0

20 5 5 16

498.0 280.0 693.0 476.0

25 15 2 34

76.0 65.0 81.0 32.5

90 38 16 81

185.0 161.0 237.0 157.0

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

C or D Felonies (N=74)

(N=153)

B Felonies

12.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=227)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were no cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

-93-

-94-

Table 6f Median Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0

12.5

9.0

19.0

4.0

153

9.0

23 5

12.0 31.0

30 18

10.0 5.0

26 0

19.0 -

13 38

8.0 3.0

92 61

12.5 3.0

6.0

9.0

17.0

4.5

8.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

6 4

7.0 4.0

13 4

11.0 7.5

21 0

17.0 -

5 21

0.0 4.0

45 29

11.0 4.0

ALL CHARGES:

9.0

18.0

4.0

227

9.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

29 9

9.0 5.0

43 22

10.0 6.0

47 0

18.0 -

18 59

8.0 3.0

137 90

12.0 4.0

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

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

C or D Felonies (N=74)

(N=153)

268

B Felonies

282

Median Number of Days

(N=227)

All Charges

273

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were no cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2004 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-95-

-96-

Table 6g Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2004 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0

184.0

258.5

462.0

62.0

153

182.0

23 5

158.0 867.0

30 18

273.0 77.5

26 0

462.0 -

13 38

134.0 45.0

92 61

282.0 55.0

91.0

254.0

447.0

54.5

151.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

6 4

91.0 74.0

13 4

264.0 123.0

21 0

447.0 -

5 21

216.0 47.0

45 29

268.0 47.0

ALL CHARGES:

146.0

257.0

462.0

60.0

227

171.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

29 9

148.0 105.0

43 22

268.0 77.5

47 0

462.0 -

18 59

137.0 47.0

137 90

273.0 50.0

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

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

-97Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 282 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, a decrease from the 303 juveniles released at arraignment during the previous reporting period. As shown in Exhibit 7A, about four percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2004, slightly lower than the five percent rate in 2003 and the six percent rate in 2002 and 2001. The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2004 for juveniles arraigned in 2004, and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2004. The failure-toappear 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. More than 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 (7 of the 12 juveniles). The FTA rate in Brooklyn was six percent of the 120 juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment. The FTA rate was higher in Queens (8%) where three of the 38 juveniles who were released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment missed a scheduled court appearance. In both the Bronx and Manhattan, only one of the 54 juveniles released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment 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 (16 in 2004) 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 (145) than in 2003, 2002, 2001 or 2000 (120, 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 previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (11%, 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. 19

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

- 98 Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2004 (Second half of FY 2004 through First half of FY 2005; January - December, 2004)

compared to 4% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (4%, 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 about the same as the rate reported for 2003 (9%) and lower than for 2002 (13%), 2001 (12%), 2000 (13%), and 1999 (13%).

-99-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2004 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 95.7% Yes 4.3%

(N=282)

0 4

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

8 199

207

0 4

1 78

3.9% 96.1% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

1.3% 98.7% 100.0%

38.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

5.8% 94.2% 100.0%

58.0%

1 125

126

0 5

0 61

0 6

1 53

0.8% 99.2% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

48.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8%

1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

42.9%

2 113

115

0 3

1 54

0 3

1 53

1.7% 98.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.6%

1.8% 98.2% 100.0%

47.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.6%

1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

47.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 125

128

0 5

0 82

0 3

3 35

2.3% 97.7% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.3%

7.9% 92.1% 100.0%

29.7%

Queens %

14 562

576

0 17

2 275

277

0 16

12 254

266

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.0%

0.7% 99.3% 100.0%

48.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.8%

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

46.2%

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

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

7 113

120

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 2004 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

Table 7a

-100-

-101-

Exhibit 7B Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court For Defendants Released at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 2004 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 9.0%

No 91.0%

(N=145)

0 14

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

9 59

3 5

1 11

1 15

13.2% 86.8% 100.0%

100.0%

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

11.8%

8.3% 91.7% 100.0%

17.6%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

23.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20.6%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

26.5%

7 75

3 7

0 6

0 15

1 9

3 38

8.5% 91.5% 100.0%

100.0%

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

12.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

18.3%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

12.2%

7.3% 92.7% 100.0%

50.0%

7 56

1 2

0 26

2 12

1 4

3 12

11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

4.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

41.3%

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

22.2%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

7.9%

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

23.8%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 78

2 4

0 24

0 9

0 17

1 24

3.7% 96.3% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

7.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

29.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.0%

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

30.9%

Queens N %

26 268

294

9 18

1 67

3 51

2 44

11 88

8.8% 91.2% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

9.2%

1.5% 98.5% 100.0%

23.1%

5.6% 94.4% 100.0%

18.4%

4.3% 95.7% 100.0%

15.6%

11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

33.7%

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 14

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 2004 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-102-

-103-

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.