Juveniles Report 05 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 2005

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2006

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 2005

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Dale Sealy Programmer/Analyst

November 2006

This report can be downloaded from http://www.cjareports.org

ď&#x192;Ł 2006 NYC Criminal Justice Agency When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2006. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2005. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

-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 2005 (the second half of fiscal year 2005 and the first half of fiscal year 2006). 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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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 at 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. 3

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

-3Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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 2005 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. 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 (FTA) 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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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 release 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 57 arrests during this reporting period), Staten Island information is not included in the information presented after the Arrest Section. Thus, “citywide” 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 250, only 61 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 relevant only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, we discuss defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the arraignment hearing; the defendants whose cases were terminated at that point through a dismissal have no release status and are not included in the information. For those cases transferred either to Family Court or elsewhere, there will be a release status, because the case is still open, but the release status is frequently unavailable. OVERVIEW OF CASE VOLUME AT EACH DECISION POINT 4 Although the database does not record whether the case was sent to the Family Court through either a removal or a referral, disposition type may be used as a rough guide for tracking this distinction. Prearraignment, Decline Prosecutions (DPs) or referrals to Family Court are the mechanisms for sending arrests to the Family Court; those, which are referred, are automatically reviewed by the Corporation Counsel, while those which are given DPs, may not be. For this report, both the pre-arraignment Family Court referrals and the Declined Prosecution arrest outcomes are combined. Post-arraignment, dismissals are the referral mechanism, while the CJA category 'Transfer to Family Court' (TR-FC) is used primarily for removals.

-5Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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.5 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;casesâ&#x20AC;? 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 1953 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. One of every three of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1303 cases (67%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, less than 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 (69%). 5

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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

Retention in System (% of total volume)

Release Decision

Out

Retained

Released

Detained

1953

1303 (67%)

650 (33%)

Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

661

5 (0%)

656 (100%)

353 (54%)6

303 (46%)

CC Dispositions

644

280 (43%)

364 (57%)

SC 1st Appearances

353

34 (10%)

319 (90%)

165 (54%)

SC Dispositions

317

98 (31%)

219 (69%)

123 (58%)

Arrests

data not available data not available 7

140 (46%)

88 (42%)

6 The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 656 cases, not 661, because release status is not relevant for the five dockets that were dismissed. 7

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 305 cases, not 353, because release status data is missing for nine cases, not available for the 23 cases transferred to the Family Court, not relevant for the eleven cases that were dismissed nor for the five cases in which the bench warrant was ordered at the first scheduled appearance in the Supreme Court. 8 The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 211, not 317, because release status is missing for eight juvenile cases and the release decision is not relevant for the 57 cases that were dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death. Release status data is limited to defendants who are convicted and awaiting sentencing. It is not available for the 41 dockets that were transferred to Family Court.

-7Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1953 arrests for JO offenses in 2005. This is somewhat higher than the roughly 1600 arrests reported in 2001 to 2004 and the 1809 arrests in 2000. 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 more than three quarters of the juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2005, eleven of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson) compared to 13 arrests in 2004 but only four arrests in 2003, eight in 2001 and 2002. After first- and second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was burglary in the second degree. This charge accounted for nearly five percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. It is also important here to note that, as of November 1998, juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (265.03, subsection 4) or third degree (265.02), if it occurred on school grounds, and juveniles can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, each of the 45 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 98 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 2005. 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 49 percent in the Bronx to 67 percent in Queens and Staten Island. Arrests for one of the weapon charges account for eight to ten percent of JO arrests in Brooklyn, the Bronx or Staten Island, compared to less than five percent in Manhattan or Queens (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 2005. Exhibit 1B shows that six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varies a somewhat by borough, ranging between 56 and 67 percent. The JO arrests reported in 2005 were about as likely to involve fifteen-year-olds as were those reported in previous years. There were two JO arrests involving thirteenyear-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. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (87%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

arrestees who were female have been small for most reporting periods and are particularly narrow for 2005 ranging from nearly eleven to nearly 15 percent across the four largest boroughs. 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 in 2005 were female, compared to fourteen percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. However, unlike previous years, more than a third (4 arrestees) of the small number (11) of juveniles charged with an A felony at arrest in 2005 were female. Nevertheless, overall, JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, two thirds of the 2005 JO arrests were not docketed.9 The proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2005 (33%) is slightly lower than in 2003 and 2004 (both 37%), but is the range of the percentages filed in 1998 through 2002 (28% to 38%). 9

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: 2005 JO Arrests

Burglary 1 0.5%

Other* 10.6%

Burglary 2 4.7% Assault 1 3.5%

Murder 2 0.5%

Robbery 1 20.4%

Att. Murder 2 1.0%

Robbery 2 58.8%

(N=1953)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=655)

Percentage

0.6 0.5

20.0

58.6

4.0

16.3

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=345)

0.6

23.2

61.7

1.7

12.8

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=473)

2.7 0.8

22.8

48.8

5.3

19.5

Att. Murder 2

2005 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough:

Queens (N=423)

0.5

17.5

66.9

2.4

12.8

Assault 1

Staten Is. (N=57)

Other*

10.5 1.8 1.8

66.7

1.8

17.5

-10-

655

100.0%

473

231 19 10 30

290

13 108 25 0 9 14 0 5 5 0

179

4 0 0

100.0%

48.8% 4.0% 2.1% 6.3%

61.3%

2.7% 22.8% 5.3% 0.0% 1.9% 3.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0%

37.8%

0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

0.8%

Bronx N %

345

213 16 5 10

244

0 80 6 0 4 5 1 2 0 0

2 1 0

100.0%

61.7% 4.6% 1.4% 2.9%

70.7%

0.0% 23.2% 1.7% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

28.4%

0.6% 0.3% 0.0%

0.9%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0 0 0

423

283 24 5 14

326

2 74 10 0 5 4 0 2 0 0

100.0%

66.9% 5.7% 1.2% 3.3%

77.1%

0.5% 17.5% 2.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

22.9%

0.0%

Queens %

38 2 1 4

1 6 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

20 399 68 0 21 35 1 9 6 0

559

10 1 0

100.0% 1953

66.7% 1149 3.5% 91 1.8% 45 7.0% 98

100.0%

58.8% 4.7% 2.3% 5.0%

70.8%

1.0% 20.4% 3.5% 0.0% 1.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0%

28.6%

0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

0.6%

CITYWIDE N %

78.9% 1383

1.8% 10.5% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

19.3%

1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

1.8%

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

384 30 24 40

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

58.6% 4.6% 3.7% 6.1%

73.0%

478

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

26.6%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

0.6% 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

174

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

4 131 26 0 2 10 0 0 1 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 2005 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=655)

Percentage

33.3

66.7

Bronx (N=473)

0.4

38.3

61.3

Manhattan (N=345)

42.6

57.4

Queens (N=423)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2005 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

38.1

61.9

Staten Is. (N=57)

43.9

56.1

Citywide (N=1953)

0.1

37.5

62.4

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

0.5%

0.8%

0.9%

0 2 1

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

2 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 2

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 0

174

26.6%

179

37.8%

28.4%

0 60 114

0.0% 34.5% 65.5% 100.0%

0 75 104

0.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0%

0 36 62

0.0% 36.7% 63.3% 100.0%

0 40 57

478

73.0%

290

61.3%

244

70.7%

0 156 322

0.0% 32.6% 67.4% 100.0%

0 106 184

0.0% 36.6% 63.4% 100.0%

0 110 134

655

100.0%

473

100.0%

0 218 437

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

2 181 290

0.4% 38.3% 61.3% 100.0%

0.0%

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

1.8%

0.6%

0 1 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 4 5

18.2% 36.4% 45.5% 100.0%

22.9%

19.3%

559

28.6%

0.0% 41.2% 58.8% 100.0%

0 3 8

0.0% 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%

0 214 345

0.0% 38.3% 61.7% 100.0%

326

77.1%

78.9%

1383

70.8%

0.0% 45.1% 54.9% 100.0%

0 121 205

0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

0 21 24

0.0% 46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

0 514 869

0.0% 37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

345

100.0%

423

100.0%

1953

100.0%

0 147 198

0.0% 42.6% 57.4% 100.0%

0 161 262

0.0% 38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

0 25 32

0.0% 43.9% 56.1% 100.0%

2 732 1219

0.1% 37.5% 62.4% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=655)

Percentage

89.2

10.8

Bronx (N=473)

86.5

13.5

Manhattan (N=345)

87.8

12.2

Queens (N=423)

Gender Males Females

2005 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

85.3

14.7

Staten Is. (N=57)

80.7

19.3

Citywide (N=1953)

87.2

12.8

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

0.5%

0.8%

0.9%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0

174

26.6%

179

37.8%

28.4%

163 11

93.7% 6.3% 100.0%

156 23

87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

90 8

91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

89 8

478

73.0%

290

61.3%

244

70.7%

418 60

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

251 39

86.6% 13.4% 100.0%

212 32

655

100.0%

473

100.0%

584 71

89.2% 10.8% 100.0%

409 64

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

0.0%

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE %

1.8%

0.6%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 4

63.6% 36.4% 100.0%

22.9%

19.3%

559

28.6%

91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

9 2

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

507 52

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

326

77.1%

78.9% 1383

70.8%

86.9% 13.1% 100.0%

272 54

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

36 9

80.0% 1189 20.0% 194 100.0%

86.0% 14.0% 100.0%

345

100.0%

423

100.0%

100.0% 1953

100.0%

303 42

87.8% 12.2% 100.0%

361 62

85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

46 11

80.7% 1703 19.3% 250 100.0%

87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=655)

Percentage

66.6

33.4

Bronx (N=473)

67.4

32.6

Manhattan (N=345)

55.1

44.9

Queens (N=423)

72.8

27.2

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2005 JO Arrests

87.7

12.3

Staten Is. (N=57)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough:

Citywide (N=1953)

66.7

33.3

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

0.5%

0.8%

0.9%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0

174

26.6%

179

37.8%

28.4%

36 138

20.7% 79.3% 100.0%

71 108

39.7% 60.3% 100.0%

21 77

21.4% 78.6% 100.0%

478

73.0%

290

61.3%

244

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

400 78

83.7% 16.3% 100.0%

247 43

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

655

100.0%

473

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

436 219

66.6% 33.4% 100.0%

319 154

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

0.0%

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

1.8%

0.6%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 7

36.4% 63.6% 100.0%

22.9%

19.3%

559

28.6%

24 73

24.7% 75.3% 100.0%

9 2

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

161 398

28.8% 71.2% 100.0%

70.7%

326

77.1%

78.9% 1383

70.8%

167 77

68.4% 31.6% 100.0%

284 42

87.1% 12.9% 100.0%

40 5

88.9% 1138 11.1% 245 100.0%

82.3% 17.7% 100.0%

100.0%

345

100.0%

423

100.0%

100.0% 1953

100.0%

67.4% 32.6% 100.0%

190 155

55.1% 44.9% 100.0%

308 115

72.8% 27.2% 100.0%

50 7

87.7% 1303 12.3% 650 100.0%

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 66110 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, more than in any year between 2000 and 2004 (which ranged from 506 to 620). However, 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 14 percent citywide increase in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The increase was largest in Manhattan (36%), followed by the Bronx (25%), and Brooklyn (9%), and the arraignment volume decreased by nine percent in Queens. Brooklyn JO arraignments again account for over a third of the citywide volume. The Bronx and Manhattan each account for a quarter of JO arraignments citywide and Queens accounts for less than a fifth of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that nearly half of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery and another 37 percent were for second degree robbery. Thus, more than eight of every ten JO dockets in adult court had robbery affidavit charges. 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, 29 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 vary by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. The proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery varied widely, from only 39 percent in Manhattan and only 43 percent in Queens to 50 percent in the Bronx and 52 percent in Brooklyn. During most reporting periods, when first and second degree robbery are considered together the borough differences are narrower because the borough with the highest proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery shows the lowest proportion of juveniles charged with second degree robbery at arraignment. In contrast, however, in 2005, first and second degree robbery charges account for only 73 percent of arraignments in the Bronx but 84, 88 and 91 percent in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, 10 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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

respectively. Brooklyn and the Bronx show particularly high proportions of dockets with first degree assault charges (6% and 8%, compared to 1% in Manhattan and Queens). Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.11 There were very few dismissals (5) and no transfers to Family Court at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 51 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2005. The rate of ROR is markedly higher than the rate in any previous period in this reporting series, which ranged from 28 to 46 percent. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR changed little in Brooklyn (57%) and the Bronx (44%). The increase in Manhattan (from 47% to 59%) more than compensated for the decline from 2003 to 2004 (from 53%). The increase in Queens (from 30% to 36%) continued the increase evident from 2003 to 2004 (from 22%). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail in 2005 remained at three percent, with a total of only 20 juveniles released on bail at arraignment in 2005. Only one juvenile secured release on bail at arraignment in Queens, compared to three in Manhattan, five in the Bronx and eleven in Brooklyn. The juveniles in JO arraignments in Queens (63%) were again most likely to be detained, on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. Half of the juveniles were detained in JO arraignments in the Bronx (52%) and less than four of every ten were detained in Brooklyn (38%) or Manhattan (39%). 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 43 percent (higher than the 38% released on ROR in 2003 and 2004), compared to 63 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (about equal to the 64% released on ROR in 2004). 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 2005, the proportion released on ROR was highest in Brooklyn (53%), followed by Manhattan (43%) and the Bronx (38%) and lowest in Queens (29%), as in 2004. The borough differences are even wider at the C- and D-felony level, ranging from an ROR rate of only 43 percent for these juveniles in Queens to 74 percent in Manhattan. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 66 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 49 percent of males, each four percentage points higher than in 2004. The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge 11

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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 2005, 70 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, about the same as in 2004, but 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 83 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, a marked decrease from the 88 percent with a positive recommendation in 2004 and the 93 percent 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.” In 2005, the murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs and two juveniles in the Bronx were excluded from recommendation for ROR because of an outstanding bench warrant. If the juveniles in these categories are subtracted from the calculation base, then 87 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2005 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, still lower than the 92 percent recommended in 2004. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2005 were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (55% compared to 43%). The difference was very wide in both Brooklyn (63% compared to 43%) and Manhattan (62% compared to 42%), and was smaller in Queens (39% compared to 31%). In the Bronx, the recommended juveniles showed a lower rate of ROR at arraignment (51%) than their counterparts who were not recommended (60%). However, only ten juveniles arraigned in the Bronx in 2005 were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment. In 2005, there were far more juveniles who were not recommended for ROR on this basis (68, compared to only 36 juveniles in 2004, 16 juveniles in 2003, 27 juveniles in 2002, 19 in 2001 and 26 in 2000).

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2005 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 46.6%

Murder 2 1.2% Other* 7.0%

Att. Murder 2 3.8%

Assault 1 4.4%

Robbery 2 37.1%

(N=661)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=226)

Percentage

4.0 1.3

51.8

32.3

6.2

4.4

Murder 2

1.2

39.1

49.1

1.2

9.3

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=161) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

8.3 1.9

49.7

22.9

7.6

9.6

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=157)

Att. Murder 2

2005 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough:

Queens (N=117)

Other*

2.6

42.7

48.7

5.1 0.9

-22-

226

100.0%

3 0 0

157

36 0 0 6

13 78 12 0 4 1 0 0 4 0

112

100.0%

22.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%

26.8%

8.3% 49.7% 7.6% 0.0% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

71.3%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

161

79 4 2 2

0 63 2 0 1 3 0 3 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

49.1% 2.5% 1.2% 1.2%

54.0%

0.0% 39.1% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

44.7%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1.2%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

57 1 0 0

3 50 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

48.7% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

49.6%

2.6% 42.7% 0.9% 0.0% 1.7% 0.9% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

50.4%

0.0%

Queens %

117

8 0 0

661

245 7 2 13

267

25 308 29 0 8 6 0 5 5 0

100.0%

37.1% 1.1% 0.3% 2.0%

40.4%

3.8% 46.6% 4.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

58.4%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1.2%

CITYWIDE %

386

TOTAL

73 2 0 5

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

32.3% 0.9% 0.0% 2.2%

35.4%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.3%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

4.0% 51.8% 6.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

143

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

9 117 14 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

Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2005 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=226)

Percentage

57.1

4.9

37.2

0.9

ROR

Bronx (N=155)

44.5

3.2

48.4

3.9

Manhattan (N=158)

58.9

1.9

36.7

2.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2005 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=117)

Remand

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough:

35.9

0.9

61.5

1.7

Citywide (N=656)

50.8

3.0

44.1

2.1

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 JO Arraignments

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

1.3%

1.9%

1.3%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 0 0 2

33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

143

63.3%

112

72.3%

45.6%

76 7 59 1

53.1% 4.9% 41.3% 0.7% 100.0%

42 4 62 4

37.5% 3.6% 55.4% 3.6% 100.0%

31 2 37 2

43.1% 2.8% 51.4% 2.8% 100.0%

35.4%

25.8%

53 4 23 0

66.3% 5.0% 28.8% 0.0% 100.0%

26 1 13 0

65.0% 2.5% 32.5% 0.0% 100.0%

226

100.0%

155

129 11 84 2

57.1% 4.9% 37.2% 0.9% 100.0%

69 5 75 6

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

1.2%

1 0 2 5

12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 62.5% 100.0%

50.4%

386

58.8%

17 1 39 2

28.8% 1.7% 66.1% 3.4% 100.0%

166 14 197 9

43.0% 3.6% 51.0% 2.3% 100.0%

53.2%

49.6%

262

39.9%

62 1 21 0

73.8% 1.2% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25 0 33 0

43.1% 0.0% 56.9% 0.0% 100.0%

166 6 90 0

63.4% 2.3% 34.4% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

158

100.0%

117

100.0%

656

100.0%

44.5% 3.2% 48.4% 3.9% 100.0%

93 3 58 4

58.9% 1.9% 36.7% 2.5% 100.0%

42 1 72 2

35.9% 0.9% 61.5% 1.7% 100.0%

333 20 289 14

50.8% 3.0% 44.1% 2.1% 100.0%

Bail Set/Made 3.0%

(N=61)

(N=595)

Remand 1.6%

Females

Remand 2.2%

ROR 65.6%

Males

Bail Set/Not Made 45.5%

ROR 49.2%

2005 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Not Made 29.5%

Bail Set/Made 3.3%

-26-

129 11 84 2

226

13 1 4 0

116 10 80 2

208

57.1% 4.9% 37.2% 0.9% 100.0%

100.0%

72.2% 5.6% 22.2% 0.0% 100.0%

8.0%

55.8% 4.8% 38.5% 1.0% 100.0%

92.0%

Brooklyn N %

69 5 75 6

155

6 1 9 0

63 4 66 6

139

44.5% 3.2% 48.4% 3.9% 100.0%

100.0%

37.5% 6.3% 56.3% 0.0% 100.0%

10.3%

45.3% 2.9% 47.5% 4.3% 100.0%

89.7%

93 3 58 4

158

12 0 1 1

81 3 57 3

144

58.9% 1.9% 36.7% 2.5% 100.0%

100.0%

85.7% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 100.0%

8.9%

56.3% 2.1% 39.6% 2.1% 100.0%

91.1%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

42 1 72 2

117

9 0 4 0

33 1 68 2

35.9% 0.9% 61.5% 1.7% 100.0%

100.0%

69.2% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

11.1%

31.7% 1.0% 65.4% 1.9% 100.0%

88.9%

Queens %

104

333 20 289 14

656

* Excludes 5 arraignments, all dismissed cases.

40 2 18 1

293 18 271 13

595

50.8% 3.0% 44.1% 2.1% 100.0%

100.0%

65.6% 3.3% 29.5% 1.6% 100.0%

9.3%

49.2% 3.0% 45.5% 2.2% 100.0%

90.7%

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 2005 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-27-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=226)

Percentage

73.5

9.3

3.5

13.7

Bronx (N=155)

69.7

7.1 1.3 6.5

15.5

Manhattan (N=158)

62.0

15.2

0.6

22.2

Queens (N=117)

75.2

11.1

1.7

12.0

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

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2005 JO Arraignments

Citywide (N=656)

70.1

10.4

3.4 0.3

15.9

-28-

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2005 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

166

73.5%

108

69.7%

62.0%

75.2%

460

70.1%

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

104 10 51 1

62.7% 6.0% 30.7% 0.6% 100.0%

55 4 49 0

50.9% 3.7% 45.4% 0.0% 100.0%

61 3 33 1

62.2% 3.1% 33.7% 1.0% 100.0%

34 0 53 1

38.6% 0.0% 60.2% 1.1% 100.0%

254 17 186 3

55.2% 3.7% 40.4% 0.7% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

9.3%

6.5%

15.2%

11.1%

10.4%

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

9 0 12 0

42.9% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 4 0

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 13 1

41.7% 0.0% 54.2% 4.2% 100.0%

4 1 7 1

30.8% 7.7% 53.8% 7.7% 100.0%

29 1 36 2

42.6% 1.5% 52.9% 2.9% 100.0%

0.0%

J7A--Bench Warrant: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal

0 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0.3%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3.5%

7.1%

0.6%

1.7%

3.4%

0 1 6 1

0.0% 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0%

1 0 6 4

9.1% 0.0% 54.5% 36.4% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 14 6

4.5% 4.5% 63.6% 27.3% 100.0%

13.7%

15.5%

22.2%

12.0%

104

15.9%

16 0 15 0

51.6% 0.0% 48.4% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 15 1

29.2% 4.2% 62.5% 4.2% 100.0%

22 0 12 1

62.9% 0.0% 34.3% 2.9% 100.0%

4 0 10 0

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

49 1 52 2

47.1% 1.0% 50.0% 1.9% 100.0%

226

100.0%

155

100.0%

158

100.0%

117

100.0%

656

100.0%

129 11 84 2

57.1% 4.9% 37.2% 0.9% 100.0%

69 5 75 6

44.5% 3.2% 48.4% 3.9% 100.0%

93 3 58 4

58.9% 1.9% 36.7% 2.5% 100.0%

42 1 72 2

35.9% 0.9% 61.5% 1.7% 100.0%

333 20 289 14

50.8% 3.0% 44.1% 2.1% 100.0%

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

1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

J7C--Murder Charge:

Recommendation Not Available:

2 0 0 1 1

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 5 arraignments, all dismissed cases.

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 644 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, more than the 615 dockets disposed in 2004, 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 39 more dockets disposed in Manhattan, eleven more in Brooklyn, six more in the Bronx and 27 fewer in Queens. The distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arrest and arraignment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more than eight of every ten are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 56 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, higher than the rate in 2004 (49%), 2003 (42%) or 2002 (37%). Again, there are wide borough differences in the rate of transfer to the upper court and in the size of the change in the rate of transfer. The rate of transfer to Supreme Court was lowest in Manhattan (36%), a marked decrease from the 47 percent of JO dockets transferred to the upper court in 2004. The rate of transfer to the upper court also decreased in Queens, from 63 percent in 2004 to 54 percent in 2005. The rate of transfer to Supreme Court increased in Brooklyn, from only 33 percent in 2004, the lowest among the boroughs during that reporting period, to 42 percent in 2005. The largest difference, however, occurred in the Bronx where the rate of transfer to Supreme Court increased from 62 percent in 2004 to 99 percent in 2005. This dramatic increase in the proportion of Bronx cases transferred to the upper court reflects the recent restructuring of the Bronx Criminal and Supreme Courts to create a single, integrated, court of criminal jurisdiction. As of November 2004, criminal cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx are transferred directly to Supreme Court for adjudication. Not only was the rate of transfer to Supreme Court affected by the streamlining of the courts but the rates of dismissal and transfer to the Family Court from the Criminal Court were also affected. No Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from the Criminal Court in 2005, compared to 22 percent in 2004, and only two Bronx JO cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court, compared to 17 percent in 2004. The increase in the rate of transfer to upper court in Brooklyn was matched by complementary decreases in the rates of dismissal and transfer to Family Court. In Manhattan, the decrease in the rate of transfer to the Supreme Court was associated with increases in the dismissal (from 2% to 4%) and transfer to Family Court (from 52% to 60%) rates. In Queens, the decrease in the rate of transfer to the Supreme Court (9 percentage points) was accompanied by a nearly equal decrease in the rate of dismissal (8 percentage points, from 17% to 9%), while the rate of transfer to Family Court nearly doubled (from 20% to 37%). 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 12

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.

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals13 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 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 twice as high (70%) for B-felony dockets than for C- or D-felony dockets (36%). The relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is particularly strong in Brooklyn where 57 percent of B-felony dockets were transferred to the upper court compared to only 16 percent of the C- or D-felony dockets. In Manhattan, half of B-felony dockets but less than a quarter of C- or D-felony dockets were transferred to the Supreme Court, and the comparable figures for Queens are 67 percent and 40 percent, respectively. All of the Bronx dockets with B-felony charges and 95 percent of those with C- or D-felony charges were transferred to the upper court. 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 2005 for JO cases was three, the same as in 2004. Examination of length of case by borough shows no change between 2005 and 2004 in Brooklyn and Manhattan where the median number of appearances in lower court remained three, nor in Queens where the median remained seven. However, in the Bronx, the median decreased from three appearances to only one, reflecting the nearly universal transfer of cases to the upper court from arraignment in Criminal Court. The median number of appearances also remained at three for three of the four release status categories but increased slightly for the small number of juveniles released on bail at arraignment. The median number of days in Criminal Court was just under three weeks citywide, more than a week shorter than in 2004 (Table 3d). Much of the change is attributable to the restructuring of criminal prosecution in the Bronx. The median number of days decreased from 12 days in 2004 to zero days in 2005, since nearly every case was transferred to the upper court at arraignment in Criminal Court. There are, however, wide differences among the other boroughs. The median number of days in Criminal Court was longest in Queens (66, down from nearly 70 in 2004 but up from 49 13 Referrals can only occur after the adult court concludes its case with a dismissal. Removals represent the transferring of active cases.

-32Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

in 2003 and from 58 in 2002), followed by Manhattan (51, up from 34 in 2004, 25 in 2003 and from 11 in 2002). Median number of days in lower court also increased in Brooklyn (29, up from nearly 26 in 2004 and from 12 and 13 days, respectively, in 2003 and 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 (38 days) or on bail (37 days) at arraignment was more than seven times longer than the number of days elapsed where the juvenile was held on bail (5 days) or remanded with no bail set (3 days) at arraignment. This is in accordance with speedy trial regulations, which set more stringent time limitations for processing cases for defendants in detention. However, other factors also contribute to differences in length of case by borough. In Brooklyn and Manhattan, for example, a median of less than a week elapsed in lower court for juveniles who were detained on bail at arraignment, compared to more than eight weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, a median of zero days elapsed from arraignment to disposition in the Bronx, nearly seven 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 three weeks longer to reach disposition in Criminal Court than did B-felony cases (36 days, compared to 7 days). This reflects the overrepresentation of Bronx and Brooklyn cases, with their shorter length-of-case, in the B-felony category while the Manhattan and Queens cases are overrepresented in the C- and D-felony category. Brooklyn and Bronx cases together account for two thirds of the JO cases with B felony charges, while Manhattan and Queens cases together account for more than half of the JO cases in the lower charge category. In each borough except Queens, median length of case in the bail-set-and-notmade category was virtually the same for B felony and lesser severity cases. In Queens, B felony cases took nearly three months to complete processing in the lower court, compared to less than two months for cases with lower charges.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=227)

Percentage

4.0 1.3

48.5

34.8

7.0

4.4

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=155)

1.3

38.1

48.4

1.3

11.0

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=157)

8.3 1.9

49.7

22.9

7.6

9.6

Att. Murder 2

Queens (N=105)

3.8 1.9

39.0

48.6

4.8 1.9

Assault 1

2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough:

Citywide (N=644)

Other*

4.0 1.6

44.7

37.4

5.0

7.3

-33-

227

100.0%

3 0 0

157

36 0 0 6

13 78 12 0 4 1 0 0 4 0

112

100.0%

22.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%

26.8%

8.3% 49.7% 7.6% 0.0% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

71.3%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

155

75 4 1 3

0 59 2 0 3 4 1 1 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

48.4% 2.6% 0.6% 1.9%

53.5%

0.0% 38.1% 1.3% 0.0% 1.9% 2.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

45.2%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

51 1 0 0

4 41 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

48.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

49.5%

3.8% 39.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

48.6%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

Queens %

105

10 0 0

644

241 7 1 14

263

26 288 32 0 10 7 1 2 5 0

100.0%

37.4% 1.1% 0.2% 2.2%

40.8%

4.0% 44.7% 5.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0%

57.6%

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

1.6%

CITYWIDE %

371

TOTAL

79 2 0 5

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

34.8% 0.9% 0.0% 2.2%

37.9%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

60.8%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

4.0% 48.5% 7.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

138

3 0 0

Brooklyn N %

9 110 16 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

Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-34-

[644]

100%

Citywide

[105]

Queens

[155]

Manhattan

[157]

Bronx

[227]

Brooklyn

50%

(18.0)

(37.1)

25%

(60.0)

50%

(56.5)

(54.3)

75% Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(42.3)

(36.1)

Transfers To FC

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

(8.6)

(1.3)

(25.5)

(26.4)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(3.9)

(31.3)

Dismissals

2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

(98.7)

-35-

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0% 100.0%

(N=10)

A Felonies

Percent

20.2% 9.7%

Dismissals

(N=371)

B Felonies

70.1%

Transfers to SC

33.8% 30.4%

(N=263)

C or D Felonies

35.7%

Transfers to FC

2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

25.5% 18.0%

(N=644)

All Charges

56.5%

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 2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

1.3%

1.9%

1.3%

1.9%

1.6%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 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 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 10 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

138

60.8%

112

71.3%

45.2%

48.6%

371

57.6%

36 79 23 0

26.1% 57.2% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 112 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 35 1 0

48.6% 50.0% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

5 34 12 0

9.8% 66.7% 23.5% 0.0% 100.0%

75 260 36 0

20.2% 70.1% 9.7% 0.0% 100.0%

37.9%

26.8%

53.5%

49.5%

263

40.8%

24 14 48 0

27.9% 16.3% 55.8% 0.0% 100.0%

2 40 0 0

4.8% 95.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

59 19 5 0

71.1% 22.9% 6.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 21 27 0

7.7% 40.4% 51.9% 0.0% 100.0%

89 94 80 0

33.8% 35.7% 30.4% 0.0% 100.0%

227

100.0%

157

100.0%

155

100.0%

105

100.0%

644

100.0%

60 96 71 0

26.4% 42.3% 31.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 155 0 0

1.3% 98.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

93 56 6 0

60.0% 36.1% 3.9% 0.0% 100.0%

9 57 39 0

8.6% 54.3% 37.1% 0.0% 100.0%

164 364 116 0

25.5% 56.5% 18.0% 0.0% 100.0%

(N=372)

B Felonies

(N=10)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

Remand

(N=262)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=644)

All Charges

4.5

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 2005 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

1.0

2.5

10.5

3.0

0 0 2 1

6.0 3.0

1 0 0 2

1.0 1.0

0 0 0 2

2.5

0 0 0 2

10.5

1 0 2 7

1.0 6.0 3.0

138

3.0

112

1.0

3.5

9.0

372

3.0

74 7 56 1

5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

42 4 62 4

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

29 1 38 2

4.0 7.0 3.0 4.0

13 0 36 3

9.0 9.0 3.0

158 12 192 10

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

7.0

262

3.0

59 4 23 0

3.0 6.0 3.0 -

26 1 13 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

57 1 23 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

23 2 30 0

5.0 4.0 7.0 -

165 8 89 0

3.0 4.0 5.0 -

227

3.0

155

1.0

153

3.0

109

7.0

644

3.0

133 11 81 2

3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

69 5 75 6

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

86 2 61 4

3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0

36 2 66 5

6.0 4.0 8.5 5.0

324 20 283 17

3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0

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

B Felonies (N=372)

(N=10)

A Felonies

5.5

Median Number of Days

ROR

2.5

44.5

Remand

(N=262)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

2005 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=644)

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 2005 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

0.0

4.0

238.5

4.5

0 0 2 1

5.5 5.0

1 0 0 2

0.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

4.0

0 0 0 2

238.5

1 0 2 7

0.0 5.5 5.0

138

30.0

112

0.0

50.5

96.0

372

7.0

74 7 56 1

47.0 47.0 5.0 4.0

42 4 62 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

29 1 38 2

89.0 197.0 6.0 57.5

13 0 36 3

124.0 81.0 3.0

158 12 192 10

32.0 34.0 5.0 2.5

33.5

0.0

75.0

7.0

262

36.0

59 4 23 0

42.0 44.5 5.0 -

26 1 13 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

57 1 23 0

93.0 5.0 6.0 -

23 2 30 0

61.0 72.0 50.5 -

165 8 89 0

42.0 44.5 15.0 -

227

29.0

155

0.0

153

51.0

109

66.0

644

20.5

133 11 81 2

47.0 47.0 5.0 4.5

69 5 75 6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

86 2 61 4

93.0 101.0 6.0 4.5

36 2 66 5

62.0 72.0 60.5 101.0

324 20 283 17

38.0 37.0 5.0 3.0

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2005 (353) is higher than in 2004 (294) and is higher than in recent years, but remains lower than in 1999 (372). The increase primarily reflects the increase in Bronx JO cases transferred to Supreme Court (154, up from 82 in 2004) in accordance with the restructuring of the Bronx courts. If Bronx cases are excluded from the comparison, the citywide volume of cases that reached Supreme Court declined slightly, from 212 to 199. The volume of new JO cases in the upper court increased substantially in Brooklyn (from 68 to 89), decreased in Manhattan (from 63 to 56), and decreased sharply in Queens (from 81 to 54). The charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,14 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), shows that first and second degree robbery are still the most common charges. These charges together account for more than three quarters of the JO cases entering the upper court in 2005, about the same 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, as they did in 2004. Similarly, first degree robbery accounts for a fifth of all juvenile arrests during 2005, but for half of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together account for less than three of every ten JO arrests but nearly seven of every ten cases that reached first appearance in Supreme Court (Table 4a). In short, more serious JO charges are more likely to be represented among the cases of juveniles at the first appearance in Supreme Court than are less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, 18 percent of the defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2005 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, down from more than a quarter of defendants in JO cases 2004. More than a quarter (28%) of the juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance and 43 percent 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. Most of the citywide change since 2004 seems to reflect the tremendous increase in volume in the Bronx Supreme Court as a consequence of the court restructuring. Differences across the boroughs in outcomes at the first appearance are dramatic. Queens again shows the highest proportion of cases where juveniles pled guilty. Fully nine of every ten defendants in Queens JO cases pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. The plea rate at the first appearance in the Bronx has decreased again (to 6% from 12% in 2004 and from 19% in 2003) and the rate of early pleas remained low in Brooklyn (6%). In Manhattan, once again, no juvenile pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. Fourteen percent of Bronx cases were transferred to the Family Court, compared to only one percent of JO cases in Brooklyn and none of the Manhattan or 14

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

Queens cases. Similarly, six percent of Bronx cases were dismissed, compared to only two percent of Brooklyn JO cases and none of the Manhattan or Queens cases. Fully 22 of the 23 cases transferred to the Family Court at the initial upper court appearance and nine of the eleven dismissed cases were from the Bronx. Prior to streamlining the courts in the Bronx in 2004, these transfers to the Family Court and dismissals were more likely to have taken place in the Criminal Court and would have been reflected in this report in Table 3b, which displays dispositions leaving the Criminal Court. The large proportion of guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance in Queens reflects differences in plea policies and changes in the use of the Superior Court Information (SCI).15 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%), 2004 (68%) and were particularly high during the current reporting period (91%). In the Bronx, however, the rate was far lower during those years (26%, 15%, 20%, 5%, 19% and 12%, respectively, and down to 6% during the current reporting period). Few juveniles have pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance in any reporting period in Brooklyn or Manhattan. In 2005, five juveniles in Brooklyn and no juveniles in Manhattan pled guilty at the initial Supreme Court appearance. 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, just as in the previous reporting period. However, in 2005, juveniles were slightly more likely to be released on ROR (41%, up from 37%) and somewhat less likely to secure release on bail (13%, down from 17%). However, the citywide proportion of cases in which the juveniles were held on bail increased (to 28%, up from 20%) which the proportion of cases in which the juvenile was held with no bail set at this early stage of Supreme Court prosecution decreased (to 18%, from 26%). As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in over half of the cases with B-felony charges and in 63 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 (39%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (49%). The citywide stability in the proportion of cases with juvenile defendants released on ROR as of the first appearance in Supreme Court in 2004 and 2005 is not apparent in each borough. The change in the rate of ROR was greatest in Brooklyn, where the rate 15

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

increased 17 points (from 30% in 2004 to 47% in 2005), followed by the Bronx, where the ROR rate decreased ten percentage points (from 57% in 2004 to 47% in 2005). The change in the rate of release on bail was about ten percentage points in the Bronx (a decrease down to 4%, from 14%) and Manhattan (an increase to 18% from 8%). The largest change within a release status category occurred in the bail-set-not-made category in the Bronx, which increased 23 points, from 21 percent of defendants in JO cases in 2004 to 44 percent in 2005. When the proportions released on bail and released on ROR at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, however, the overall rate of release is greatest in the Brooklyn (68%), followed by Queens (55%), the Bronx (51%), and Manhattan (41%). 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. The data show that cases moved far more quickly in 2005 than in the previous year. In 2005, citywide, it took a median of only five days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), compared to roughly two weeks in 2004. Bfelony cases took a median of five days, and C- or D-felony cases took ten days to reach the upper court, compared to 16 days and 13, respectively, during the previous year. The dramatic citywide shift in the pace of case processing again reflects the influence of the court restructuring in the Bronx. In 2005, Bronx cases accounted for a far greater proportion of citywide first appearances in upper court for which data were available (39%) than in the previous reporting period (27%), and those cases arrived far more quickly (median of 4 days) than in the previous year (18 days). Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. As in the previous reporting period, the shortest median time from lower to upper court was zero days in Queens. A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the JO cases that came to Supreme Court in Queens had arrived by SCI, rather than by indictment. In SCI cases, defendants waive indictment at the last Criminal Court appearance and, typically, plead guilty in the upper court on the same day. The median number of days to the first appearance in Supreme Court in Manhattan remained at about two weeks. In the Bronx, the median number of days decreased to 4 days from 18 days. The longest median number of days from Criminal to Supreme Court occurred in Brooklyn where over five weeks elapsed, longer than the median of 26 days in 2004. 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: 2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 50.7%

Murder 2 2.0%

Att. Murder 2 5.1%

Other* 7.9% Assault 1 8.2%

Robbery 2 26.1%

(N=353)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=89)

Percentage

5.6 2.2

55.1

21.3

12.4

3.4

Murder 2

7.8 1.3

51.3

20.1

8.4

11.0

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

Bronx (N=154)

Att. Murder 2

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

3.6

41.1

1.8

12.5

Assault 1

2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=54)

Other*

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

1.9 1.9

51.9

35.2

1.9 7.4

-46-

100.0%

2 0 0

154

31 0 0 6

12 79 13 0 5 2 0 0 4 0

115

100.0%

20.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

24.0%

7.8% 51.3% 8.4% 0.0% 3.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

74.7%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

23 1 0 1

0 23 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

41.1% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%

44.6%

0.0% 41.1% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

51.8%

3.6% 0.0% 0.0%

3.6%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

19 0 0 0

1 28 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

35.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

35.2%

1.9% 51.9% 7.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

63.0%

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1.9%

Queens %

7 0 0

353

92 1 1 8

102

18 179 29 1 5 6 1 0 5 0

100.0%

26.1% 0.3% 0.3% 2.3%

28.9%

5.1% 50.7% 8.2% 0.3% 1.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

69.1%

2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2.0%

CITYWIDE %

244

TOTAL

19 0 1 1

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

21.3% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

23.6%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

74.2%

2.2% 0.0% 0.0%

2.2%

5.6% 55.1% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

2 0 0

Brooklyn N %

5 49 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-47-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=89)

Percentage

5.6

64.0

1.1 2.2

23.6

3.4

Bronx (N=154)

5.8 1.3 5.8

14.3

71.4

1.3

Manhattan (N=56)

60.7

39.3

Disposition Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Transfer To Family Court Continued

Queens (N=54)

90.7

9.3

Dismissed Bench Warrant

2005 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=353)

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

17.8

27.8

3.1

6.5

43.3

1.4

-48-

-49-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2005 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 %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.2%

1.3%

3.6%

1.9%

2.0%

0 0 0 0 2 0

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

0 0 0 0 2 0

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

0 2 0 0 0 0

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

0 1 0 0 0 0

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

0 3 0 0 4 0

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

74.2%

115

74.7%

51.8%

63.0%

244

69.1%

3 46 2 0 13 2

4.5% 69.7% 3.0% 0.0% 19.7% 3.0% 100.0%

7 1 8 12 85 2

6.1% 0.9% 7.0% 10.4% 73.9% 1.7% 100.0%

0 18 0 0 11 0

0.0% 62.1% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% 0.0% 100.0%

30 4 0 0 0 0

88.2% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

40 69 10 12 109 4

16.4% 28.3% 4.1% 4.9% 44.7% 1.6% 100.0%

23.6%

24.0%

44.6%

35.2%

102

28.9%

2 11 0 1 6 1

9.5% 52.4% 0.0% 4.8% 28.6% 4.8% 100.0%

2 1 1 10 23 0

5.4% 2.7% 2.7% 27.0% 62.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 14 0 0 11 0

0.0% 56.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 0 0 0 0

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

23 26 1 11 40 1

22.5% 25.5% 1.0% 10.8% 39.2% 1.0% 100.0%

100.0%

154

100.0%

353

100.0%

5 57 2 1 21 3

5.6% 64.0% 2.2% 1.1% 23.6% 3.4% 100.0%

9 2 9 22 110 2

5.8% 1.3% 5.8% 14.3% 71.4% 1.3% 100.0%

0 34 0 0 22 0

0.0% 60.7% 0.0% 0.0% 39.3% 0.0% 100.0%

49 5 0 0 0 0

90.7% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

63 98 11 23 153 5

17.8% 27.8% 3.1% 6.5% 43.3% 1.4% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=78)

Percentage

47.4

20.5

11.5

46.6

4.2

44.1

5.1

Manhattan (N=56)

23.2

17.9

28.6

30.4

37.7

17.0

1.9

43.4

Remand

Queens (N=53)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=118)

ROR

2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=305)

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

41.0

13.1

27.9

18.0

-50-

-51-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.6%

1.7%

3.6%

1.9%

2.3%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

76.9%

77.1%

51.8%

64.2%

214

70.2%

28 11 15 6

46.7% 18.3% 25.0% 10.0% 100.0%

40 5 43 3

44.0% 5.5% 47.3% 3.3% 100.0%

6 5 8 10

20.7% 17.2% 27.6% 34.5% 100.0%

10 7 1 16

29.4% 20.6% 2.9% 47.1% 100.0%

84 28 67 35

39.3% 13.1% 31.3% 16.4% 100.0%

20.5%

21.2%

44.6%

34.0%

27.5%

9 5 1 1

56.3% 31.3% 6.3% 6.3% 100.0%

15 0 9 1

60.0% 0.0% 36.0% 4.0% 100.0%

7 5 8 5

28.0% 20.0% 32.0% 20.0% 100.0%

10 2 0 6

55.6% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

41 12 18 13

48.8% 14.3% 21.4% 15.5% 100.0%

100.0%

118

100.0%

305

100.0%

37 16 16 9

47.4% 20.5% 20.5% 11.5% 100.0%

55 5 52 6

46.6% 4.2% 44.1% 5.1% 100.0%

13 10 16 17

23.2% 17.9% 28.6% 30.4% 100.0%

20 9 1 23

37.7% 17.0% 1.9% 43.4% 100.0%

125 40 85 55

41.0% 13.1% 27.9% 18.0% 100.0%

B Felonies (N=212)

(N=7)

15.5

4.5

Remand

(N=84)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2005 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

(N=303)

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 2005 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

44.0

4.0

6.5

21.0

9.0

0 0 0 2

44.0

0 0 0 2

4.0

0 0 0 2

6.5

0 0 0 1

21.0

0 0 0 7

9.0

36.5

4.0

15.0

0.0

212

5.0

28 11 15 6

26.0 42.0 46.0 46.0

40 5 43 3

5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0

6 5 7 9

15.0 18.0 7.0 7.0

10 7 1 16

0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0

84 28 66 34

14.0 15.5 5.0 6.0

23.5

5.0

15.0

0.0

10.0

9 5 1 1

18.0 25.0 39.0 506.0

15 0 9 1

23.0 4.0 172.0

7 5 8 5

15.0 15.0 13.5 8.0

10 2 0 6

0.0 0.0 0.0

41 12 18 13

15.0 16.0 4.5 4.0

36.0

118

4.0

15.0

0.0

303

5.0

37 16 16 9

22.0 32.5 45.0 44.0

55 5 52 6

5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0

13 10 15 16

15.0 15.5 7.0 8.0

20 9 1 23

0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0

125 40 84 54

15.0 16.0 5.0 6.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 50 cases: 11 dismissals and 39 cases missing release status

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 317 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2005, a thirty percent increase from the 244 disposed in the upper courts in 2004. However, the citywide increase is primarily attributable to the restructuring of the Bronx courts. The volume of Bronx JO cases disposed in the upper court more than doubled, from 65 in 2004 to 138 in 2005 and the volume of JO dispositions in Brooklyn also increased substantially, from 47 in 2004 to 67 in 2005. In contrast, fewer cases were disposed in the Supreme Court in the current report in both Queens (down by 17) and Manhattan (down by 3). The charge composition of JO cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions examined at other milestones in this report (Exhibit 5A.1 and Table 5a). As in the previous reporting period, first degree robbery is the most common charge at disposition in the upper court. More than half of the JO cases involved a charge of first degree robbery, compared to only 42 percent in 2004, and first and second degree robbery together account for more than eight of every ten dispositions (84%) in 2005, compared to only three quarters of dispositions during the previous reporting period. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault, which accounts for six percent of Supreme Court dispositions. A-felony charges account for less than one percent of disposed cases (only two cases in 2005), B-felony charges account for over 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 not as large as they have been in previous reporting periods (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). The proportion of cases with first degree robbery charges at disposition varied by less than ten percentage points across the boroughs, ranging from 50 percent in Manhattan to 53 and 54 percent of cases in Queens and the Bronx, respectively, to 60 percent in Brooklyn. In 2004, the proportion of cases disposed with first degree robbery charges ranged 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 in 2005 are only slightly wider: Only a fifth of Brooklyn cases were charged with second degree robbery at disposition, compared to 30 to 34 percent of those disposed in the remaining boroughs. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first or second degree robbery charges ranges from 79 percent in Brooklyn (up from 62%) to 84 percent in both the Bronx (up from 71%) and Manhattan (up from 79%) and 85 percent in Queens (comparable to the 84% in 2004). After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first degree assault, but borough differences in the frequency of this charge at disposition are small during the current reporting period. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is very high in each borough except the Bronx: Overall, 69 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, compared to 85 percent in 2004, 90 percent in 2003, 93 percent in 2002 and 88 percent in 2001. The conviction rates remained high in Queens (100%, up from 96%), increased in Manhattan

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

(90%, up from 76%), and Brooklyn (85%, up from 79%), and dropped sharply in the Bronx (to only 40%, from 85%). The decrease in the rate of conviction in the Bronx directly reflects the consequences of reorganizing the criminal courts in that borough. Since all felony cases that are not disposed at the initial hearing in the Bronx lower court are sent to the upper court for adjudication, many cases that are heard in the Supreme Court in that borough previously would have reached disposition in the Criminal Court. If the charges are reduced in the Supreme Court but remain felony-level in an adult case, the conviction will be recorded in the Supreme Court. For JO cases, however, the juvenile may be prosecuted in the adult court only for specific serious felony offenses. If the charge is reduced to any other charge, there cannot be a conviction in the adult court, although the case may be adjudicated in the Family Court instead16. Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were slightly less likely to show convictions (60%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (73%). The difference in the rate of conviction rate for B-felony cases compared to those with C- or D-felony charges was wide in Brooklyn (90%, compared to only 67%) and the Bronx (45%, compared to only 29%) and negligible in Manhattan (91%, compared to 89%) and Queens (100% conviction rate at both levels). The citywide volume of JO cases adjourned for sentencing in 2005 (211) is comparable to that reported for 2004 (207). The borough composition of these cases was not affected by the Bronx court restructuring. In fact, the volume of cases adjourned for sentencing in the Bronx in 2005 (55) was only one more than the volume of similar cases in 2004. The volume of cases adjourned pending sentencing also increased slightly in Manhattan (43, up from 39), and increased substantially in Brooklyn (52, up from 38). In Queens, however, the volume decreased, from 76 in 2004 to only 61 in 2005. As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 58 percent of JO cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. This is slightly higher than the 56 percent released at disposition in 2004, and slightly lower than the 61 percent released at disposition in 2003. The juveniles were less likely to secure 16

To create a measure of the rate of conviction based on all final dispositions across Criminal and Supreme Court in the boroughs, we summed dismissals and transfers to Family Court from the lower and upper courts with upper court convictions. We calculated a new conviction rate based on all final dispositions across Criminal and Supreme Court as the number of convictions divided by all convictions and non-convictions. The citywide new conviction rate as displayed below was the same in 2005 as in 2004 (63%). The new conviction rate for the Bronx was slightly higher (61%) in 2005 than in 2004 (56%). 2005 All Dism or TR-FC Convicted TOTAL 2004 All Dism or TR-FC Convicted TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 141 29 57 71 198 100

Bronx N % 85 39 55 61 140 100

Manhattan N % 104 30 45 70 149 100

Queens N % 48 56 62 44 110 100

CITYWIDE N % 378 37 219 63 597 100

155 37 192

69 54 123

75 40 115

52 76 128

351 207 558

19 81 100

44 56 100

35 65 100

59 41 100

37 63 100

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

release on recognizance (44%, up from 37% in 2004), and slightly less likely to post bail (15%, down from 18% in 2004). As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for the defendants in JO cases to be held on bail as of disposition pending sentencing in Supreme Court; 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 and the rates themselves were very similar to those in 2004. In 2005, as in 2004, the highest rates of release at disposition were in Brooklyn and the Bronx (both 65%, and both up from 63%). In 2005, as in 2004, just over half of the juveniles in JO cases disposed in Queens were released. The lowest rate of release at JO dispositions was in Manhattan, where 49 percent of juveniles in JO cases were released pending sentencing, a small increase from the 44 percent released at that stage of case processing 2004. The picture is similar when ROR rates at dispositions are considered. More than half of the defendants (56%) in JO cases were released on recognizance at disposition in the Bronx in 2005, compared to 46 percent in Brooklyn, 40 percent in Manhattan, and only 33 percent in Queens. The Brooklyn, Bronx and Manhattan rates are higher than in the previous reporting period by 14, 8, and 7 percentage points, respectively, while the Queens rate barely changed at all. The rates of release on bail at disposition decreased substantially in Brooklyn (to 19% from 32%) and somewhat in the Bronx (to 9%, from 15%) but barely changed at all in Manhattan (9%, down from 10%) or Queens (to 20%, up from 18%). 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 51 percent, lower than in 2004 when 60 percent were disposed in the JO Parts, and lower than in other previous reporting periods. The proportion of juvenile cases that reach disposition in a JO Part varied substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (98%), followed by Brooklyn (88%) and the Bronx (31%), but only about 19 percent in Queens. The proportion of cases disposed in the JO Parts was similar to the previous reporting period in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens, changing seven percentage points or less. In the Bronx, however, the proportion disposed in the JO Part decreased dramatically from 57 percent in 2004 to only 31 percent in 2005. This reflects the increased volume of JO cases heard in the Supreme Court as a consequence of court restructuring that are not retained in the adult court for prosecution and are therefore not assigned to the JO Part. The low proportion disposed in the JO Part in Queens seems to reflect the 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 co-defendants, information that is not available in the CJA data.

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

Conviction rates have tended to be higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts, although this has not been true in every reporting period. During this reporting period, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts (91%, up from 83%) than for the non-JO Parts (46%, down from 88%). The sharp decrease in conviction rates for non-JO Parts reflects the even sharper decrease in non-JO Parts in the Bronx (17%, down from 75%), combined with the increased volume in the non-JO Parts (95 cases, up from 28 in 2004). Again, the high rate of non-conviction for the Bronx JO cases is a consequence of the court restructuring that occurred in the Bronx in November 2004. Since all cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx are transferred to the upper court, and since charge reductions in JO cases frequently involve charges for which the juvenile cannot be prosecuted in the adult court, the result is a greater proportion of JO cases disposed without conviction. In other boroughs, 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 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 separately by release status, charge severity and borough, and in Exhibits 5G and 5H separately by JO Part vs. non-JO Parts, charge severity and borough. In previous reports, the citywide length of case data that was discussed in this section was taken from Exhibits 5E and 5F. However, the additional cases transferred to the upper court in for which the release status set at the first appearance in the upper court is not available is much higher in 2005 than in previous years as a consequence of the restructuring of the Bronx courts. Specifically, Exhibits 5E and 5F exclude 46 cases due to the absence of the release status, cases that are included in Exhibits 5G and 5H. Therefore, the discussion of length of case, by citywide and by borough will be based on the later exhibits. Citywide, the median number of appearances (5) was the same as in the previous reporting period and the median number of days (85) was nine more than in the previous year (Exhibits 5G and 5H). The median number of appearances and the median number of days were longer for JO cases with B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 101 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (3 appearances and 56 days). The citywide data on the median number of appearances and the median number of days to disposition in Supreme Court again mask borough differences (Exhibit 5G and 5H). 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 five and ten appearances in the other boroughs. Cases that require only one appearance from the first appearance in Supreme Court to disposition include, of course, the SCI cases in which, by definition, the plea is entered at the first appearance. Cases may also be dismissed or transferred to the Family Court at

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

the initial hearing in the upper court. The median number of appearances increased from five to eight in Brooklyn but decreased from thirteen to ten in Manhattan and from seven to five in the Bronx. 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 63 days in the Bronx, 126 in Brooklyn, and 200 in Manhattan. The average number of days remained the same in Queens, decreased by about two months in the Bronx but increased by about seven weeks in Brooklyn and Manhattan. 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 (Exhibits 5E and 5F). Citywide, cases with juveniles who were released on ROR (5 appearances, 78 days) reached disposition faster than did cases with juveniles who were released on bail (7 appearance, 136 days) or those with juveniles who were held on bail (10 appearances, 144 days), but, in 2005, cases with juveniles who were remanded with no bail set moved especially quickly (3 appearances, 42 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 each disposition-chargeseverity category examined. Again, this finding probably in part 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. In addition, however, borough differences persist even among the cases prosecuted in the JO Parts. The median number of appearances ranged from nine in the JO Part in Brooklyn and ten in Manhattan to nearly 12 in the Bronx and 15 for the small number of JO cases disposed in the JO Part in Queens (12). Cases in the JO Part in Brooklyn took four months to reach disposition, compared to nearly seven months in the Bronx and Manhattan JO Part, while the 12 juvenile cases disposed in the Queens JO Part took a median of nearly ten months to reach disposition.

-59-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 54.6%

Murder 2 0.6% Assault 1 6.3% Att. Murder 2 3.8% Other* 5.7%

Robbery 2 29.0%

(N=317)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

3.0

9.0

59.7

19.4

3.0 6.0

Murder 2

50.0

34.0

4.0

12.0

Assault 1

Manhattan (N=50) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

2.2

54.3

30.4

6.5

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=138)

Att. Murder 2

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Queens (N=62)

Other*

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

4.8

53.2

32.3

1.6 8.1

-60-

100.0%

42 0 0 3

3 75 9 1 1 2 0 0 2 0

0 0 0

138

100.0%

30.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2%

32.6%

2.2% 54.3% 6.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

67.4%

0.0%

17 0 0 1

0 25 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

34.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

36.0%

0.0% 50.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%

64.0%

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

20 0 0 0

3 33 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

32.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

32.3%

4.8% 53.2% 8.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

67.7%

0.0%

Queens %

2 0 0

317

92 0 1 5

12 173 20 2 1 5 1 0 3 0

100.0%

29.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.6%

30.9%

3.8% 54.6% 6.3% 0.6% 0.3% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

68.5%

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

0.6%

CITYWIDE %

217

TOTAL

13 0 1 1

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

19.4% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5%

22.4%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

74.6%

3.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3.0%

9.0% 59.7% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

Brooklyn N %

6 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

85.1

14.9

Manhattan (N=50)

90.0

Queens (N=62)

100.0

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=138)

39.9

60.1

10.0

Disposition Conviction Other*

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=317)

69.1

30.9

-62-

-63-

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

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

3.0%

Conviction Other Subtotal

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

74.6%

67.4%

64.0%

Conviction Other Subtotal

45 5

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

42 51

45.2% 54.8% 100.0%

29 3

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

22.4%

32.6%

10 5

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

13 32

28.9% 71.1% 100.0%

100.0%

138

57 10

85.1% 14.9% 100.0%

55 83

ALL CHARGES: Conviction Other TOTAL

0.0%

Queens %

Conviction Other Subtotal

A FELONIES:

C OR D FELONIES:

0.0%

Manhattan N %

0.6%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67.7%

217

68.5%

42 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

158 59

72.8% 27.2% 100.0%

36.0%

32.3%

30.9%

16 2

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

20 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

59 39

60.2% 39.8% 100.0%

100.0%

317

100.0%

39.9% 60.1% 100.0%

45 5

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

62 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

219 98

69.1% 30.9% 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=52)

Percentage

46.2

19.2

17.3

56.4

9.1

5.5

29.1

Manhattan (N=43)

39.5

9.3

2.3

48.8

32.8

19.7

47.5

Remand

Queens (N=61)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=55)

ROR

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=211)

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

43.6

14.7

6.2

35.5

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 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 %

3.8%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

76.9%

76.4%

65.1%

19 9 7 5

47.5% 22.5% 17.5% 12.5% 100.0%

21 4 3 14

50.0% 9.5% 7.1% 33.3% 100.0%

11 3 1 13

39.3% 10.7% 3.6% 46.4% 100.0%

19.2%

23.6%

5 1 2 2

50.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

10 1 0 2

76.9% 7.7% 0.0% 15.4% 100.0%

100.0%

24 10 9 9

46.2% 19.2% 17.3% 17.3% 100.0%

31 5 3 16

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 2

0.9%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

68.9%

152

72.0%

9 10 0 23

21.4% 23.8% 0.0% 54.8% 100.0%

60 26 11 55

39.5% 17.1% 7.2% 36.2% 100.0%

34.9%

31.1%

27.0%

6 1 0 8

40.0% 6.7% 0.0% 53.3% 100.0%

11 2 0 6

57.9% 10.5% 0.0% 31.6% 100.0%

32 5 2 18

56.1% 8.8% 3.5% 31.6% 100.0%

100.0%

211

100.0%

56.4% 9.1% 5.5% 29.1% 100.0%

17 4 1 21

39.5% 9.3% 2.3% 48.8% 100.0%

20 12 0 29

32.8% 19.7% 0.0% 47.5% 100.0%

92 31 13 75

43.6% 14.7% 6.2% 35.5% 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. Excludes 57 cases that were dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death, 41 cases that were transferred to Family Court, as well as 8 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

88.1

11.9

Bronx (N=138)

31.2

68.8

Manhattan (N=50)

98.0

2.0

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=62)

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

19.4

80.6

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

Citywide (N=317)

51.4

48.6

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=217)

A Felonies (N=2)

4.1 3.3

16.8

35.8

47.4

JO Part Non-JO Part

92.6

JO Part Non-JO Part

50.0

100.0

Percent

Convicted

7.7 7.7

44.1

25.4

30.5

(N=98)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

84.6

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

22.1

31.8

46.1

(N=317)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

4.9 4.3

90.8

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 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3.0%

0.0%

2 0 0 2

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 % 2

0.6%

0 0 0

2 0 0 2

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 50

74.6%

67.4%

64.0%

67.7%

217

68.5%

41 2 1 44

93.2% 4.5% 2.3% 100.0%

31 0 3 34

91.2% 0.0% 8.8% 100.0%

29 2 1 32

90.6% 6.3% 3.1% 100.0%

12 0 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

113 4 5 122

92.6% 3.3% 4.1% 100.0%

4 0 2 6

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

11 16 32 59

18.6% 27.1% 54.2% 100.0%

0 0 0

30 0 0 30

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

45 16 34 95

47.4% 16.8% 35.8% 100.0%

22.4%

32.6%

36.0%

32.3%

30.9%

9 3 1 13

69.2% 23.1% 7.7% 100.0%

8 0 1 9

88.9% 0.0% 11.1% 100.0%

16 0 1 17

94.1% 0.0% 5.9% 100.0%

0 0 0

33 3 3 39

84.6% 7.7% 7.7% 100.0%

1 1 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 17 14 36

13.9% 47.2% 38.9% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20 0 0 20

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

26 18 15 59

44.1% 30.5% 25.4% 100.0%

100.0%

138

100.0%

317

100.0%

52 5 2 59

88.1% 8.5% 3.4% 100.0%

39 0 4 43

90.7% 0.0% 9.3% 100.0%

45 2 2 49

91.8% 4.1% 4.1% 100.0%

12 0 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

148 7 8 163

90.8% 4.3% 4.9% 100.0%

5 1 2 8

62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0%

16 33 46 95

16.8% 34.7% 48.4% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

50 0 0 50

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

71 34 49 154

46.1% 22.1% 31.8% 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=186)

(N=3)

5.5

10.5

Remand

(N=82)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=271)

All Charges

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

-69-

-70-

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Borough for 2005 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

20.0

0.0

20.0

0 0 0 2

20.0

0 0 0 1

20.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

20.0

9.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

186

7.0

17 5 16 6

7.0 4.0 10.5 9.0

40 6 23 2

5.0 13.5 11.0 4.5

6 4 11 12

11.5 10.0 9.0 10.5

10 12 0 16

1.0 3.0 1.0

73 27 50 36

5.0 7.0 10.0 5.5

7.0

3.0

9.0

1.0

4.5

9 2 1 2

6.0 9.5 19.0 5.0

25 0 7 1

3.0 5.0 1.0

3 1 8 3

9.0 14.0 10.5 8.0

10 2 2 6

1.0 1.0 15.0 1.0

47 5 18 12

3.0 4.0 10.5 1.0

9.0

105

7.0

10.0

1.0

271

7.0

26 7 17 10

7.0 4.0 11.0 9.0

65 6 30 4

5.0 13.5 9.0 4.5

9 5 19 15

10.0 11.0 10.0 9.0

20 14 2 22

1.0 1.0 15.0 1.0

120 32 68 51

5.0 7.0 10.0 3.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 46 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

200

300

400

500

B Felonies (N=186)

(N=3)

140 143.5

45.5

150

Remand

(N=82)

C or D Felonies

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

A Felonies

399

Median Number of Days

ROR

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=271)

All Charges

77.5

136.5 143.5

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

-71-

-72-

Table 5f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2005 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

334.5

647.0

0.0

399.0

0 0 0 2

334.5

0 0 0 1

647.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

399.0

129.0

117.0

196.0

0.0

186

109.5

17 5 16 6

77.0 101.0 184.0 72.5

40 6 23 2

92.0 280.0 137.0 154.0

6 4 11 12

182.0 249.0 133.0 192.5

10 12 0 16

0.0 52.5 0.0

73 27 50 36

85.0 140.0 143.5 45.5

140.0

65.0

168.0

0.0

69.5

9 2 1 2

126.0 118.5 196.0 109.5

25 0 7 1

78.0 13.0 0.0

3 1 8 3

245.0 203.0 150.5 140.0

10 2 2 6

0.0 0.0 183.0 0.0

47 5 18 12

70.0 69.0 150.0 0.0

132.5

105

96.0

192.5

0.0

271

104.0

26 7 17 10

105.0 101.0 193.0 99.0

65 6 30 4

92.0 280.0 124.5 154.0

9 5 19 15

231.0 237.0 133.0 189.0

20 14 2 22

0.0 0.0 183.0 0.0

120 32 68 51

77.5 136.5 143.5 42.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 46 cases missing release status at the first appearance

B Felonies (N=211)

(N=2)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=98)

C or D Felonies

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=317)

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 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

20.0

2 0

20.0 -

0 0

2 0

20.0 -

8.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

217

7.0

44 6

8.5 1.0

35 58

15.0 3.0

32 0

10.0 -

12 30

15.0 1.0

123 94

10.0 1.0

6.0

3.0

9.5

1.0

3.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

13 2

8.0 1.0

9 36

9.0 2.0

17 1

9.0 36.0

0 20

1.0

39 59

9.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

8.0

138

5.0

10.0

1.0

317

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

59 8

9.0 1.0

44 94

11.5 2.5

49 1

10.0 36.0

12 50

15.0 1.0

164 153

10.0 1.0

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

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

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

B Felonies (N=217)

(N=2)

175

A Felonies

334.5

Median Number of Days

(N=98)

C or D Felonies

168

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=317)

All Charges

175

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 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

334.5

2 0

334.5 -

0 0

2 0

334.5 -

120.5

92.0

206.5

0.0

217

101.0

44 6

124.0 0.0

35 58

193.0 4.0

32 0

206.5 -

12 30

295.0 0.0

123 94

175.0 0.0

126.0

55.0

185.5

0.0

56.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

13 2

154.0 0.0

9 36

280.0 19.5

17 1

168.0 685.0

0 20

0.0

39 59

168.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

126.0

138

63.0

199.5

0.0

317

85.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

59 8

126.0 0.0

44 94

203.5 11.5

49 1

196.0 685.0

12 50

295.0 0.0

164 153

175.0 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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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 203 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2005 were for juvenile offenders, fewer than the 227 sentences in 2004 but comparable to the 207 in 2003. Fewer JO cases reached sentencing in three boroughs: the decrease was greatest in Queens (down 15), followed by the Bronx (down 10) and smallest in Manhattan (down 5). In Brooklyn, the volume of sentences for JO cases increased slightly from 38 in 2004 to 44 in 2005. Overall, more than half of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 2005 were custodial. This includes either imprisonment only (43%) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (11%). This is very similar to the rate in 2004 (41%, sentenced to imprisonment only and 11% receiving a “split” sentence). The boroughs differ in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences and in the amount and direction of the change from the previous reporting period, but the range across the boroughs was about as wide in 2005 as it was in 2004 (12 percentage points in 2005 compared to ten in 2004). The borough with the highest proportion of sentences that included any prison time remains Queens, where the rate increased slightly to 61 percent of sentences in JO cases (up from 57%). The proportion of sentences that involve prison increased more in Manhattan and Brooklyn, reaching 55 percent in Manhattan (up from 47%) and 52 percent in Brooklyn (up from 45%). The likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was lowest in the Bronx, where the proportion of JO sentences that included prison decreased to 49 percent (from 55% in 2004). 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 the current reporting period, probation with no incarceration was most common in the Bronx (51%, up from 45% in 2004 and 19% in 2003), followed by Brooklyn (48%, up from 55% in 2004 and 40% in 2003), Manhattan (43%, down from 53% in 2004 and 74% in 2003) and remained least common in Queens (37%, down from 43% in 2004 and down from 61% in 2003). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was far higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (60%) than for juveniles in cases convicted at lesser felony levels (42%). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2005 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 (54%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (22%). 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 much smaller (59% in JO Parts, compared to 47% in non-JO Parts) during this reporting period, 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

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

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, followed by Brooklyn and the Bronx, are far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to the JO Part than are juveniles in Queens. So the sentencing patterns in JO Parts are more likely to reflect the patterns characteristic of those boroughs. In Queens, however, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences account for the majority (72%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2005. 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 78 percent of the sentences during the reporting period, slightly lower than in 2004 (86%). Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were a less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (71%, compared to 92%). In the previous reporting period, juveniles were more likely to be granted YO status in the JO Parts (88%, compared to 84%). In 2004, there was little borough variation in the proportion of cases in which the juvenile was granted YO status, ranging from 84 percent to 88 across the boroughs. In 2005, the proportion receiving YO status varied little for the Bronx, Queens, or Brooklyn, ranging from 80 to 83 percent, but juveniles sentenced in Manhattan were far less likely to receive YO status (64%). 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 2005 for each of the conviction-charge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2005 appeared a median of eleven times in Supreme Court, and a median of 231 days elapsed between the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was shorter by two appearances and seven weeks. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (4 appearances, 51 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of eleven appearances in Brooklyn (189 days), 13 appearances in the Bronx (246 days) and 19 appearances (409 days) in Manhattan. The median number of appearances remained the same as in 2004 in Queens, but the median length of case decreased by a week. In the Bronx, the median number of days decreased 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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

by eleven days while the median number of appearances increased by four appearances. The median length of case increased in Brooklyn by two appearances and 43 days. In Manhattan, the increase in the median number of appearances by one appearance was associated with a decrease of nearly two months in the median number of days to sentencing in Supreme Court. The citywide data show a small 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. It took a median of 12 appearances and 231 days for JO cases with B-felony charges to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, compared to a median of 9 appearances and 189 days for JO cases with less severe charges. 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 (14 appearances and 290 days) than for those sentenced in other parts (3 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 14 appearances and 281 days in the JO Parts and 3 appearances and 52 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. 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 appearances from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court in Queens is more than twice as many as in any other borough (7 appearances in Queens compared to

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

3 appearances citywide, Table 3c). For the juveniles who were held on bail, the median number of appearances in Queens is even longer (8.5 appearances, compared to only 3 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=44)

Percentage

45.5

6.8

47.7

Bronx (N=55)

45.5

3.6

50.9

Imprisonment

Manhattan (N=42)

52.4

2.4

42.9

2.4

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=62)

Probation

2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

33.9

27.4

37.1

1.6

Other

Citywide (N=203)

43.3

11.3

44.3

1.0

-81-

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 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 %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

4.5%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

70.5%

74.5%

61.9%

13 3 15 0

41.9% 9.7% 48.4% 0.0% 100.0%

22 2 17 0

53.7% 4.9% 41.5% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0 10 1

57.7% 0.0% 38.5% 3.8% 100.0%

25.0%

25.5%

5 0 6 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 11 0

21.4% 0.0% 78.6% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

20 3 21 0

45.5% 6.8% 47.7% 0.0% 100.0%

25 2 28 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 2

1.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

69.4%

141

69.5%

19 10 14 0

44.2% 23.3% 32.6% 0.0% 100.0%

69 15 56 1

48.9% 10.6% 39.7% 0.7% 100.0%

38.1%

30.6%

29.6%

7 1 8 0

43.8% 6.3% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 7 9 1

10.5% 36.8% 47.4% 5.3% 94.7%

17 8 34 1

28.3% 13.3% 56.7% 1.7% 98.3%

100.0%

203

100.0%

45.5% 3.6% 50.9% 0.0% 100.0%

22 1 18 1

52.4% 2.4% 42.9% 2.4% 100.0%

21 17 23 1

33.9% 27.4% 37.1% 1.6% 100.0%

88 23 90 2

43.3% 11.3% 44.3% 1.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

33.3

Probation

Non-JO Part

4.5

(N=60)

JO Part

2.6

18.2

31.8

C or D Felonies

11.2

34.2

45.5

(N=141)

Non-JO Part

21.4

23.8

54.8

63.2

Sentence Imp. and Probation

B Felonies

JO Part

6.1

60.6

Percent

Imprisonment

2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

41.0

1.6 Non-JO Part

25.0 21.9

51.6

(N=203)

All Felonies

JO Part

5.0

54.0

Other

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

-83-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=5)

(N=39)

40.0

60.0

JO Part

Brooklyn

46.2

7.7

46.2

Percentage

(N=42)

JO Part

15.4

84.6

(N=13)

Non JO Part

Bronx

54.8

4.8

40.5

Imprisonment

(N=42)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

54.8

2.4

42.9

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=16)

JO Part

(N=46)

Non JO Part

21.7

34.8

41.3

2.2

Other

Queens

68.8

6.3

25.0

Probation

2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

21.9

25.0

51.6

(N=139) (N=64)

JO Part

Citywide

54.0

5.0

41.0

1.6

-84-

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

4.5%

0.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

1.0%

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 31

70.5%

74.5%

61.9%

69.4%

141

69.5%

12 3 12 0 27

44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

21 2 9 0 32

65.6% 6.3% 28.1% 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 10 0 26

61.5% 0.0% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

11 1 2 0 14

78.6% 7.1% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

60 6 33 0 99

60.6% 6.1% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 0 4

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 8 0 9

11.1% 0.0% 88.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

8 9 12 0 29

27.6% 31.0% 41.4% 0.0% 100.0%

10 9 23 0 42

23.8% 21.4% 54.8% 0.0% 100.0%

25.0%

25.5%

38.1%

30.6%

29.6%

4 0 6 0 10

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 8 0 10

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 8 0 16

43.8% 6.3% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 1 24 0 38

34.2% 2.6% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 0 4

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 7 7 1 17

11.8% 41.2% 41.2% 5.9% 100.0%

4 7 10 1 22

18.2% 31.8% 45.5% 4.5% 100.0%

100.0%

203

100.0%

18 3 18 0 39

46.2% 7.7% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0%

23 2 17 0 42

54.8% 4.8% 40.5% 0.0% 100.0%

23 1 18 0 42

54.8% 2.4% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11 1 4 0 16

68.8% 6.3% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

75 7 57 0 139

54.0% 5.0% 41.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 11 0 13

15.4% 0.0% 84.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

10 16 19 1 46

21.7% 34.8% 41.3% 2.2% 100.0%

14 16 33 1 64

21.9% 25.0% 51.6% 1.6% 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%

33.7

9.3

13.5

(N=59)

Non-JO Part

4.5

C or D Felonies

JO Part

86.5

95.5

(N=141)

Non-JO Part

90.7

Not Youthful Offender

B Felonies

JO Part

66.3

Percent

Youthful Offender

2005 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

7.7

Non-JO Part

(N=202)

All Felonies

29.2

JO Part

70.8

92.3

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=6)

(N=37)

83.3

16.7

JO Part

Brooklyn

83.8

16.2

Percentage

(N=42)

JO Part

92.3

(N=13)

Non JO Part

Bronx

76.2

23.8

7.7

(N=42)

JO Part

(N=0)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

64.3

35.7

Non JO Part

93.5

6.5

(N=16) (N=46)

JO Part

Queens

43.8

56.3

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

70.8

29.2

Non JO Part

92.3

7.7

(N=137) (N=65)

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 2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

4.7%

0.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

1.0%

0 0

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

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

0 0 31

72.1%

74.5%

61.9%

69.4%

141

69.8%

22 4 26

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

23 9 32

71.9% 28.1% 100.0%

15 11 26

57.7% 42.3% 100.0%

5 9 14

35.7% 64.3% 100.0%

65 33 98

66.3% 33.7% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

0 0

26 3 29

89.7% 10.3% 100.0%

39 4 43

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

23.3%

25.5%

38.1%

30.6%

29.2%

9 0 9

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 1 10

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

12 4 16

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32 5 37

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

17 0 17

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 1 22

95.5% 4.5% 100.0%

100.0%

202

100.0%

31 6 37

83.8% 16.2% 100.0%

32 10 42

76.2% 23.8% 100.0%

27 15 42

64.3% 35.7% 100.0%

7 9 16

43.8% 56.3% 100.0%

97 40 137

70.8% 29.2% 100.0%

5 1 6

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

12 1 13

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

0 0

43 3 46

93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

60 5 65

92.3% 7.7% 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=57)

C or D Felonies

10.5

(N=137)

B Felonies

9.5

Median Number of Appearances

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Remand

(N=196)

All Charges

14.5

11.5

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 2 cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

2005 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 2005 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

22.0

0 0 0 2

22.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

22.0

11.0

14.0

19.0

4.0

137

12.0

13 7 4 4

11.0 14.0 7.0 11.0

22 2 3 14

14.0 11.5 25.0 17.0

12 2 2 9

21.0 19.5 27.0 12.0

8 9 0 26

3.0 5.0 5.5

55 20 9 53

14.0 9.5 12.0 12.0

9.5

12.5

26.0

3.0

9.0

6 1 2 1

8.0 5.0 13.5 22.0

9 1 0 4

12.0 21.0 9.0

9 1 1 4

26.0 14.0 27.0 21.5

8 4 0 6

5.0 2.5 3.0

32 7 3 15

10.5 5.0 17.0 5.0

11.0

13.0

19.0

4.0

196

11.0

19 8 6 7

9.0 11.0 9.5 13.0

31 3 3 18

13.0 13.0 25.0 14.5

21 3 3 13

22.0 19.0 27.0 13.0

16 13 0 32

3.0 3.0 4.5

87 27 12 70

11.0 8.0 14.5 11.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 7 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

248

(N=57)

126

C or D Felonies

194

(N=137)

210

231

255

B Felonies

272.5

Median Number of Days

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

246

Remand

222.5

(N=196)

All Charges

238

224

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 2 cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

ROR

2005 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 2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

376.0

0 0 0 2

376.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

376.0

192.5

240.0

413.0

54.0

137

231.0

13 7 4 4

189.0 372.0 119.0 136.5

22 2 3 14

259.5 338.0 235.0 231.0

12 2 2 9

549.5 427.0 722.5 271.0

8 9 0 26

55.5 71.0 42.0

55 20 9 53

248.0 272.5 210.0 231.0

181.0

337.0

406.0

47.0

189.0

6 1 2 1

164.0 126.0 221.5 210.0

9 1 0 4

345.0 651.0 153.0

9 1 1 4

413.0 406.0 686.0 285.0

8 4 0 6

60.5 51.5 19.0

32 7 3 15

194.0 126.0 255.0 33.0

189.0

246.0

409.5

51.0

196

231.0

19 8 6 7

175.0 305.0 174.5 210.0

31 3 3 18

329.0 340.0 235.0 231.0

21 3 3 13

455.0 413.0 686.0 271.0

16 13 0 32

56.5 52.0 34.0

87 27 12 70

246.0 238.0 222.5 224.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 7 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

C or D Felonies (N=60)

(N=141)

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=203)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 2 cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2005 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 2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

22.0

2 0

22.0 -

0 0

2 0

22.0 -

11.0

14.0

17.5

4.0

141

12.0

27 4

11.0 7.0

32 9

15.0 5.0

26 0

17.5 -

14 29

15.5 3.0

99 42

14.0 3.0

9.0

12.5

21.0

3.0

9.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

10 1

8.0 13.0

10 4

13.0 5.0

16 0

21.0 -

2 17

10.0 3.0

38 22

13.0 3.0

ALL CHARGES:

11.0

13.0

17.5

3.5

203

11.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

39 5

11.0 11.0

42 13

15.0 5.0

42 0

17.5 -

16 46

14.0 3.0

139 64

14.0 3.0

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

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

C or D Felonies (N=60)

(N=141)

316.5

B Felonies

281

Median Number of Days

50.5

(N=203)

All Charges

290

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 2 cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2005 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 2005 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

376.0

2 0

376.0 -

0 0

2 0

376.0 -

196.0

240.0

398.5

54.0

141

235.0

27 4

196.0 154.0

32 9

304.5 72.0

26 0

398.5 -

14 29

291.5 42.0

99 42

281.0 52.0

174.0

337.0

399.0

43.0

181.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

10 1

181.0 112.0

10 4

363.5 62.5

16 0

399.0 -

2 17

243.5 41.0

38 22

316.5 47.0

ALL CHARGES:

192.5

246.0

399.0

50.5

203

231.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

39 5

196.0 112.0

42 13

338.0 63.0

42 0

399.0 -

16 46

291.5 42.0

139 64

290.0 50.5

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, 2005 (Second half of FY 2005 through First half of FY 2006; January - December 2005)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 353 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, an increase from the 282 juveniles released at arraignment during the previous reporting period and from the 303 released at that initial stage of prosecution in 2003. As shown in Exhibit 7A, about four percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2005, about the same as in 2004, but 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 2005 for juveniles arraigned in 2005, and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2005. 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 (8 of the 14 juveniles). The FTA rate in Brooklyn was six percent of the 129 juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment. The FTA rate was higher in Queens (7%) where three of the 42 juveniles who were released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment missed a scheduled court appearance. Three juveniles released on ROR at arraignment in Manhattan also missed a scheduled appearance in Criminal Court. The FTA rate in Manhattan, however, is only three percent because 93 juveniles were released on ROR at arraignment in that borough. None of the 69 juveniles released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx failed to appear as scheduled in the lower court, but it is important to keep in mind that, as a consequence of the restructuring of the Bronx courts, all of the JO cases were transferred to the Supreme Court directly from arraignment in Criminal Court and no additional Criminal Court appearances were scheduled for the juveniles. 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 (20 in 2005) 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 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.

- 98 -

period (165) than in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 or 2000 (145, 120, 90, 81, and 93, respectively). The FTA rate in Supreme Court (11%)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 (10%, compared to 4% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (15%, 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 higher than the rate reported to 2004 or 2003 (9%) and lower than for 2002 (13%), 2001 (12%), 2000 (13%), and 1999 (13%). 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.

-99-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2005 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 96.0% Yes 4.0%

(N=353)

0 11

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

9 217

226

0 2

1 83

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.9%

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

37.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.9%

6.2% 93.8% 100.0%

57.1%

0 155

155

0 6

0 75

0 5

0 69

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

48.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

44.5%

4 154

158

0 4

1 57

0 3

3 90

2.5% 97.5% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.5%

1.7% 98.3% 100.0%

36.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

3.2% 96.8% 100.0%

58.9%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

5 112

117

0 2

2 70

0 1

3 39

4.3% 95.7% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.7%

2.8% 97.2% 100.0%

61.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.9%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

35.9%

Queens %

18 638

656

0 14

4 285

289

0 20

14 319

333

2.7% 97.3% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1%

1.4% 98.6% 100.0%

44.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.0%

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

50.8%

CITYWIDE N %

* The total excludes 5 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

8 121

129

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 2005 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: 2005 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 10.9%

No 89.1%

(N=165)

1 15

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

10 79

3 8

0 9

1 15

11.2% 88.8% 100.0%

100.0%

27.3% 72.7% 100.0%

12.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10.1%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

18.0%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

18.0%

13.5% 86.5% 100.0%

41.6%

7 147

154

0 36

0 6

6 46

0 5

1 54

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

23.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.9%

11.5% 88.5% 100.0%

33.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2%

1.8% 98.2% 100.0%

35.7%

9 47

0 0

1 16

1 15

4 6

3 10

16.1% 83.9% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

30.4%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

28.6%

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

17.9%

23.1% 76.9% 100.0%

23.2%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

4 50

0 1

0 23

0 1

1 8

3 17

7.4% 92.6% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

42.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

16.7%

15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

37.0%

Queens N %

30 323

353

3 45

1 54

8 77

6 34

12 113

125

8.5% 91.5% 100.0%

100.0%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

13.6%

1.8% 98.2% 100.0%

15.6%

9.4% 90.6% 100.0%

24.1%

15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

11.3%

9.6% 90.4% 100.0%

35.4%

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:

5 32

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 2005 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.