Juveniles Report 06 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 2006

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2007

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 2006

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

November 2007

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2007 NYC Criminal Justice Agency When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2007. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2006. 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 2006 (the second half of fiscal year 2006 and the first half of fiscal year 2007). 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 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 2006 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 71 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 222, only 69 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 1,887 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. About a third of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,236 cases (66%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, nearly two thirds were 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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

Arrests

1,887

Retention in System (% of total volume)

Release Decision

Out

Retained

Released

Detained

1,236 (66%)

651 (34%)

Not Applicable

632 (100%)

293 (46%)6

339 (54%)

CC Arraignments

635

3 (0%)

CC Dispositions

617

217 (35%)

400 (65%)

SC 1st Appearances

481

48 (10%)

433 (90%)

251 (60%)

SC Dispositions

373

116 (31%)

219 (69%)

165 (63%)

data not available data not available 7

167 (40%)

95 (37%)

6 The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 632 cases, not 635, because release status is not relevant for the three dockets that were dismissed or transferred to the Family Court. 7

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 418 cases, not 481, because release status data is not available for cases transferred to the Family Court at the first appearance nor for cases in which a bench warrant was ordered or stayed and is not relevant for cases that were dismissed. 8 The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 260, not 373, because release status data is not available for cases transferred to the Family and the release decision is not relevant for cases that were dismissed or acquitted. Release status data is usually limited to defendants who are convicted and awaiting sentencing.

-7Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1,887 arrests for JO offenses in 2006. This is slightly lower than the 1,953 arrests reported for 2005, but somewhat higher than the roughly 1,600 arrests reported in 2001 to 2004. Nevertheless, the current volume of JO arrests remains much lower than the peak volume of roughly 2,400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1, second-degree robbery was the most serious charge for 61 percent of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for eight of every ten juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2006, 14 of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson) compared to 11 arrests in 2005 and 13 arrests in 2004 but only four arrests in 2003, and only eight in 2001 and 2002. After first- and second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was possession of a weapon in the third degree, followed by possession of a weapon in the second degree. These charges accounted for nearly six percent and four percent, respectively, 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 80 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 107 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 have been included in this report as a JO arrest. These two weapon offenses accounted for ten percent of the arrests for JO offenses in 2006 compared to only seven percent in 2005. As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, type of arrest offense varied little across the boroughs in 2006. Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in every borough and the proportion this charge represented of all JO arrests ranged from 58 percent in Staten Island to 63 percent in Manhattan. Arrests for one of the weapon charges ranged from six percent in Queens to 13 percent in Staten Island (Table 1a). The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained 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 accounted for less than two percent of the JO arrests in 2006. Exhibit 1B shows that six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varied somewhat by borough, ranging between 55 and 64 percent. The JO arrests reported in 2006 were about as likely to involve fifteen-year-olds as were those reported in previous years. There were four 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. In the four largest boroughs, regardless of charge severity, fifteenyear-olds account for more JO arrests than do younger arrestees.

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (88%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of arrestees who were female have been small for most reporting periods, ranging from ten to 15 percent across the four largest boroughs in 2006. Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, barely seven percent of the juveniles with Bfelony arrest charges in 2006 were female, compared to nearly 14 percent of the C- or Dfelony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, two thirds of the 2006 JO arrests were not docketed.9 The proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2006 (34%) is about the same as in 2005 (33%) and slightly lower than in 2003 and 2004 (both 37%), but is in 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: 2006 JO Arrests

Other* 12.6%

Murder 2 0.7%

Robbery 1 19.0%

Burglary 1 0.4% Burglary 2 3.1%

Att. Murder 2 0.8% Assault 1 2.6%

Robbery 2 60.8%

(N=1887)

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=658)

Percentage

0.3 0.3

18.2

60.6

2.7

17.8

Manhattan (N=328)

0.9 1.5

1.5 1.2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=406)

20.1

62.8

0.6

14.0

Juvenile Offenses Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

18.7

58.9

4.2

15.5

Murder 2 Robbery 2

2006 JO Arrests

Queens (N=424)

Robbery 1 Other*

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough:

1.2 0.5

20.0

61.8

2.8

13.7

Staten Is. (N=71)

16.9

57.7

1.4

23.9

-10-

658

100.0%

406

239 7 16 27

289

6 76 17 1 4 5 0 0 3 0

112

5 0 0

100.0%

58.9% 1.7% 3.9% 6.7%

71.2%

1.5% 18.7% 4.2% 0.2% 1.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

27.6%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1.2%

Bronx N %

328

206 12 11 18

247

3 66 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0

5 0 0

100.0%

62.8% 3.7% 3.4% 5.5%

75.3%

0.9% 20.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

23.2%

1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

1.5%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

2 0 0

424

262 18 14 12

306

5 85 12 0 5 5 0 3 1 0

100.0%

61.8% 4.2% 3.3% 2.8%

72.2%

1.2% 20.0% 2.8% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0%

27.4%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

Queens %

116

41 7 2 7

0 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

16 359 50 2 17 25 1 7 4 0

481

14 0 0

100.0% 1887

57.7% 1147 9.9% 58 2.8% 80 9.9% 107

100.0%

60.8% 3.1% 4.2% 5.7%

73.8%

0.8% 19.0% 2.6% 0.1% 0.9% 1.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%

25.5%

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0.7%

CITYWIDE N %

80.3% 1392

0.0% 16.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

19.7%

0.0%

Staten Island N %

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

TOTAL

399 14 37 43

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

60.6% 2.1% 5.6% 6.5%

74.9%

493

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

24.8%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3%

0.3% 18.2% 2.7% 0.2% 1.1% 1.5% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

163

2 0 0

Brooklyn N %

2 120 18 1 7 10 1 4 0 0

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

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arrest Charge by Borough for 2006 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=658)

Percentage

38.0

62.0

Bronx (N=406)

0.5

40.9

58.6

Manhattan (N=328)

0.6

35.4

64.0

Queens (N=424)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

2006 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

38.4

61.6

Staten Is. (N=71)

45.1

54.9

Citywide (N=1887)

0.2

38.5

61.3

-12-

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 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 %

Staten Island N %

0.3%

1.2%

1.5%

0.5%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 1 2

40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0%

2 0 3

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

163

24.8%

112

27.6%

23.2%

116

27.4%

0 49 114

0.0% 30.1% 69.9% 100.0%

0 44 68

0.0% 39.3% 60.7% 100.0%

0 24 52

0.0% 31.6% 68.4% 100.0%

0 47 69

0.0% 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

0 8 6

493

74.9%

289

71.2%

247

75.3%

306

72.2%

0 201 292

0.0% 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%

0 121 168

0.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0%

0 92 155

0.0% 37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

0 116 190

658

100.0%

406

100.0%

328

100.0%

0 250 408

0.0% 38.0% 62.0% 100.0%

2 166 238

0.5% 40.9% 58.6% 100.0%

2 116 210

0.6% 35.4% 64.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 14

0.7%

4 1 9

28.6% 7.1% 64.3% 100.0%

19.7%

481

25.5%

0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

0 172 309

0.0% 35.8% 64.2% 100.0%

80.3%

1392

73.8%

0.0% 37.9% 62.1% 100.0%

0 24 33

0.0% 42.1% 57.9% 100.0%

0 554 838

0.0% 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%

424

100.0%

1887

100.0%

0 163 261

0.0% 38.4% 61.6% 100.0%

0 32 39

0.0% 45.1% 54.9% 100.0%

4 727 1156

0.2% 38.5% 61.3% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=658)

Percentage

90.0

10.0

Bronx (N=406)

87.4

12.8

Manhattan (N=328)

89.3

10.7

Queens (N=424)

Gender Males Females

2006 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

84.7

15.3

Staten Is. (N=71)

93.0

7.0

Citywide (N=1887)

88.2

11.8

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 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 %

Staten Island N %

0.3%

1.2%

1.5%

0.5%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

5 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

163

24.8%

112

27.6%

23.2%

116

27.4%

150 13

92.0% 8.0% 100.0%

106 6

94.6% 5.4% 100.0%

73 3

96.1% 3.9% 100.0%

107 9

92.2% 7.8% 100.0%

13 1

493

74.9%

289

71.2%

247

75.3%

306

72.2%

440 53

89.2% 10.8% 100.0%

245 44

84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

215 32

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

251 55

658

100.0%

406

100.0%

328

100.0%

592 66

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

355 51

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

293 35

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE %

0.7%

12 2

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

19.7%

481

25.5%

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

449 32

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

80.3% 1392

73.8%

82.0% 18.0% 100.0%

53 4

93.0% 1204 7.0% 188 100.0%

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

424

100.0%

100.0% 1887

100.0%

359 65

84.7% 15.3% 100.0%

66 5

93.0% 1665 7.0% 222 100.0%

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=658)

Percentage

69.1

30.9

Bronx (N=406)

59.6

40.4

Manhattan (N=328)

61.6

38.4

Queens (N=424)

64.4

35.6

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

2006 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=71)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough:

90.1

9.9

Citywide (N=1887)

65.5

34.5

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.3%

1.2%

1.5%

0.5%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 2

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 5

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

163

24.8%

112

27.6%

23.2%

116

27.4%

34 129

20.9% 79.1% 100.0%

19 93

17.0% 83.0% 100.0%

14 62

18.4% 81.6% 100.0%

30 86

25.9% 74.1% 100.0%

8 6

493

74.9%

289

71.2%

247

75.3%

306

72.2%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

421 72

85.4% 14.6% 100.0%

220 69

76.1% 23.9% 100.0%

188 59

76.1% 23.9% 100.0%

243 63

ALL CHARGES:

658

100.0%

406

100.0%

328

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

455 203

69.1% 30.9% 100.0%

242 164

59.6% 40.4% 100.0%

202 126

61.6% 38.4% 100.0%

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

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 14

0.7%

3 11

21.4% 78.6% 100.0%

19.7%

481

25.5%

57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

105 376

21.8% 78.2% 100.0%

80.3% 1392

73.8%

79.4% 20.6% 100.0%

56 1

98.2% 1128 1.8% 264 100.0%

81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

424

100.0%

100.0% 1887

100.0%

273 151

64.4% 35.6% 100.0%

64 7

90.1% 1236 9.9% 651 100.0%

65.5% 34.5% 100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 63510 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, slightly less than in 2005 (661) but 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 four percent citywide decrease in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The decrease was largest in Manhattan, followed by Brooklyn, and the volume of arraignments returned roughly to the volume in 2004 in both boroughs. In Queens, the number of juvenile cases arraigned in the Criminal Court (151) increased by much more than the decrease from 2004 to 2005, reaching the highest volume since 1999. Brooklyn JO arraignments accounted for nearly a third of the citywide volume. The Bronx and Queens each accounted for nearly a quarter of JO arraignments citywide and Manhattan accounted for 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 36 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 was roughly comparable to the proportion of the JO arrest population that showed robbery arrest charges, but first-degree robbery charges were more prevalent among the arraignment affidavit charges and second-degree robbery charges were 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, 22 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, constituted a larger proportion of the arraignment population than of the arrest population. Charges at arraignment vary somewhat by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. In 2006, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 42 percent in Queens and 45 percent in Manhattan to 53 percent in the Bronx and 54 percent in Brooklyn. When first- and second-degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences are narrower because the boroughs with the highest proportions of juveniles arraigned on first-degree robbery showed the lowest proportions of juveniles charged with second-degree robbery at arraignment. Together, first- and second-degree 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

robbery charges accounted for 82 to 87 percent of arraignments across the four largest boroughs. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for the boroughs.11 There were very few dismissals (1) and only two transfers to Family Court at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 42 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2006, far lower than the 51 percent released on ROR in 2005, but on the higher end of the range of ROR rates found across the years of this reporting series. The citywide decrease in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR decreased 16 percentage points in Manhattan (from 59% to 43%), and eleven percentage points in Brooklyn (from 57% to 46%). The large decrease in Queens (from 36% in 2005 to only 18% in 2006) followed several years of increases in that borough (from 13% in 2002, 22% in 2003 and 29% in 2004). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only 28 juveniles (4%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2006, with little difference by borough. The juveniles in JO arraignments in Queens (77%) 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 Brooklyn and Manhattan and nearly 38 percent were detained in the Bronx. Citywide, release rates vary by the severity of the affidavit charge, as can be seen in Table 2b. Defendants arraigned in cases with more serious charges were more likely to be detained. In 2006, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 36 percent (much lower than the 43% released on ROR in 2005 but only slightly lower than the 38% released on ROR in 2003 and 2004), compared to 52 percent 63 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (also much lower than the 63% in 2005 but 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 chargeseverity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2006, the proportion released on ROR was highest in the Bronx (50%), followed by Manhattan (43%) and Brooklyn (36%) and lowest in Queens (12%). The borough differences were even wider at the C- and Dfelony level, ranging from an ROR rate of only 26 percent for these juveniles in Queens to 79 percent in the Bronx. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 59 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 40 percent of males, a six percentage point decrease for females and a nine percentage point decrease for males from 2005 to 2006. The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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. 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, just over three quarters of arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, more than the 70 percent who received a positive recommendation in 2003 and 2004, but a decrease from 83 percent in 2003. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated according to the protocol used for adults. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then 88 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation. This is a marked increase from the 83 percent with a positive recommendation in 2005 but comparable to the 88 percent in 2004 and still less than 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 2006, the murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs and one juvenile 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 92 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2006 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, still higher than the 87 percent recommended in 2005 and comparable to the 92 percent recommended in 2004. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2006 were no more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (45%). Comparison of the ROR rates by recommendation in each borough showed no difference in Manhattan, higher ROR rates for recommended juveniles in Brooklyn (48% compared to 38%) and Queens (21% compared to 12%), and a slightly lower ROR rate for juveniles who were not recommended (69%) than for those recommended (64%) in the Bronx. However, very few juveniles were not recommended for ROR at arraignments in 2006 based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment (42 citywide, including 13 in the Bronx and in Manhattan, and 8 in Brooklyn and Queens).

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2006 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 49.0%

Murder 2 1.7%

Att. Murder 2 2.5%

Other* 7.1% Assault 1 3.9% Robbery 2 35.7%

(N=635)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=203)

Percentage

1.5 0.5

53.7

Bronx (N=156)

Manhattan (N=125) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

4.5 1.3

52.6

28.8

5.1

33.0

7.7

5.4

1.6 4.8

44.8

39.2

3.2

6.4

Juvenile Offenses Attempted Murder 2 Robbery 1 Assault 1 Other*

5.9

Murder 2 Robbery 2

2006 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough:

Queens (N=151)

8.6

2.6 1.3

42.4

43.7

1.3

-22-

203

100.0%

2 1 0

156

45 0 0 3

7 82 8 1 3 0 0 1 3 0

105

100.0%

28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

30.8%

4.5% 52.6% 5.1% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0%

67.3%

1.3% 0.6% 0.0%

1.9%

125

49 1 4 0

2 56 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

6 0 0

100.0%

39.2% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0%

43.2%

1.6% 44.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

52.0%

4.8% 0.0% 0.0%

4.8%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

66 1 4 0

4 64 2 0 2 0 0 6 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

43.7% 0.7% 2.6% 0.0%

47.0%

2.6% 42.4% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

51.7%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

Queens %

151

11 1 0

635

227 2 10 7

246

16 311 25 2 8 3 0 9 3 0

100.0%

35.7% 0.3% 1.6% 1.1%

38.7%

2.5% 49.0% 3.9% 0.3% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0%

59.4%

1.7% 0.2% 0.0%

1.9%

CITYWIDE %

377

TOTAL

67 0 2 4

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

33.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

36.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.5%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1.5% 53.7% 5.4% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

129

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 109 11 1 2 2 0 1 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2006 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=203)

Percentage

46.3

3.4

49.8

0.5

Bronx (N=154)

58.4

3.9

35.1

2.6

Manhattan (N=125)

43.2

5.6

45.6

5.6

Queens (N=150)

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough:

18.0

5.3

74.7

2.0

Citywide (N=632)

41.9

4.4

51.3

2.4

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 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 %

CITYWIDE N %

0.5%

1.3%

4.8%

1.3%

1.7%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 1

0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 6

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 1 0 10

0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 90.9% 100.0%

129

63.5%

105

68.2%

52.0%

377

59.7%

47 6 76 0

36.4% 4.7% 58.9% 0.0% 100.0%

53 2 47 3

50.5% 1.9% 44.8% 2.9% 100.0%

28 3 34 0

43.1% 4.6% 52.3% 0.0% 100.0%

9 2 66 1

11.5% 2.6% 84.6% 1.3% 100.0%

137 13 223 4

36.3% 3.4% 59.2% 1.1% 100.0%

36.0%

30.5%

43.2%

46.7%

244

38.6%

47 1 25 0

64.4% 1.4% 34.2% 0.0% 100.0%

37 3 7 0

78.7% 6.4% 14.9% 0.0% 100.0%

26 4 23 1

48.1% 7.4% 42.6% 1.9% 100.0%

18 6 46 0

25.7% 8.6% 65.7% 0.0% 100.0%

128 14 101 1

52.5% 5.7% 41.4% 0.4% 100.0%

203

100.0%

154

100.0%

125

100.0%

150

100.0%

632

100.0%

94 7 101 1

46.3% 3.4% 49.8% 0.5% 100.0%

90 6 54 4

58.4% 3.9% 35.1% 2.6% 100.0%

54 7 57 7

43.2% 5.6% 45.6% 5.6% 100.0%

27 8 112 3

18.0% 5.3% 74.7% 2.0% 100.0%

265 28 324 15

41.9% 4.4% 51.3% 2.4% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 3 cases because release status is not applicable for the dismissed case and is not available for the cases that were transferred to Family Court.

Bail Set/Made 5.8%

(N=69)

Bail Set/Not Made 33.3%

(N=563)

Remand 1.4%

Females

Remand 2.5%

ROR 59.4%

Males

Bail Set/Not Made 53.5%

Bail Set/Made 4.3%

ROR 39.8%

2006 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

-26-

94 7 101 1

203

12 0 9 0

82 7 92 1

46.3% 3.4% 49.8% 0.5% 100.0%

100.0%

57.1% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

10.3%

45.1% 3.8% 50.5% 0.5% 100.0%

89.7%

Brooklyn %

182

90 6 54 4

154

16 0 1 0

74 6 53 4

137

58.4% 3.9% 35.1% 2.6% 100.0%

100.0%

94.1% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11.0%

54.0% 4.4% 38.7% 2.9% 100.0%

89.0%

54 7 57 7

125

5 2 3 0

49 5 54 7

115

43.2% 5.6% 45.6% 5.6% 100.0%

100.0%

50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8.0%

42.6% 4.3% 47.0% 6.1% 100.0%

92.0%

27 8 112 3

150

8 2 10 1

19 6 102 2

18.0% 5.3% 74.7% 2.0% 100.0%

100.0%

38.1% 9.5% 47.6% 4.8% 100.0%

14.0%

14.7% 4.7% 79.1% 1.6% 100.0%

86.0%

Queens %

129

265 28 324 15

632

41 4 23 1

224 24 301 14

563

* Excludes 3 cases because release status is not applicable for the dismissed case and is not available for the cases that were transferred to Family Court. ** May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

41.9% 4.4% 51.3% 2.4% 100.0%

100.0%

59.4% 5.8% 33.3% 1.4% 100.0%

10.9%

39.8% 4.3% 53.5% 2.5% 100.0%

89.1%

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

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2006 JO Arraignments

Table 2c

-27-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=203)

Percentage

86.7

7.4 2.0 3.9

Bronx (N=154)

77.9

3.9 0.6 8.4

9.1

Manhattan (N=125)

55.2

10.4

5.6

28.8

Queens (N=150)

78.7

2.7 5.3

13.3

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

2006 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough:

Citywide (N=632)

76.4

3.3 0.2 6.6

13.4

-28-

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2006 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

176

86.7%

120

77.9%

55.2%

118

78.7%

483

76.4%

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

85 5 86 0

48.3% 2.8% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

77 6 36 1

64.2% 5.0% 30.0% 0.8% 100.0%

32 2 34 1

46.4% 2.9% 49.3% 1.4% 100.0%

25 6 86 1

21.2% 5.1% 72.9% 0.8% 100.0%

219 19 242 3

45.3% 3.9% 50.1% 0.6% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

3.9%

8.4%

10.4%

5.3%

6.6%

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

3 0 5 0

37.5% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 4 0

69.2% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

6 2 5 0

46.2% 15.4% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 7 0

12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%

19 2 21 0

45.2% 4.8% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0

2.0%

3.9%

5.6%

2.7%

3.3%

0 0 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 2

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 2 5

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

0 0 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 12 9

0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

7.4%

9.1%

28.8%

13.3%

13.4%

6 2 7 0

40.0% 13.3% 46.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 10 0

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16 3 16 1

44.4% 8.3% 44.4% 2.8% 100.0%

1 2 16 1

5.0% 10.0% 80.0% 5.0% 100.0%

27 7 49 2

31.8% 8.2% 57.6% 2.4% 100.0%

203

100.0%

154

100.0%

125

100.0%

150

100.0%

632

100.0%

94 7 101 1

46.3% 3.4% 49.8% 0.5% 100.0%

90 6 54 4

58.4% 3.9% 35.1% 2.6% 100.0%

54 7 57 7

43.2% 5.6% 45.6% 5.6% 100.0%

27 8 112 3

18.0% 5.3% 74.7% 2.0% 100.0%

265 28 324 15

41.9% 4.4% 51.3% 2.4% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 3 cases because release status is not applicable for the dismissed case and is not available for the cases that were transferred to Family Court.

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 617 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, fewer than the 644 disposed in 2005, but comparable to the volume (615) disposed in 2004. The citywide decrease is not reflected equally in each of the boroughs. There were 28 fewer dockets disposed in Brooklyn, 30 fewer disposed in Manhattan, but only one fewer in the Bronx and 32 more dockets disposed 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 were first- or second-degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 65 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, reflecting a steady rise in recent years (37%, 42%, 49%, and 56% in 2002 to 2005, respectively). 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 Brooklyn (47%, up from 42%), followed by Manhattan (58%, up markedly from 36%) and Queens (59%, up from 54%), and highest in the Bronx (98%, compared to 99% in 2005). The high rate of transfer to the upper court in the Bronx 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: Only three Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from the Criminal Court in 2006 and none were transferred in 2005, compared to 22 percent in 2004, and no Bronx JO cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court in 2006 and only two were dismissed in 2005, compared to 17 percent in 2004. The citywide increase in the rate of transfer to the Supreme Court accompanied a six percentage point decrease in the rate of dismissal in the Criminal Court and a two percentage point decrease in the rate of transfer to the Family Court. The decrease in the dismissal rate was particularly pronounced in Manhattan (to 41%, from 60%). In Queens, the rate of dismissal increased slightly (to 12%, from 9%), but the rate of transfer to Family Court decreased (to 28%, from 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 district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals13 and may also suggest that there have been changes in those policies. 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. 13

Referrals can only occur after the adult court concludes its case with a dismissal. Removals represent the transferring of active cases.

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 much higher (73%) for B-felony dockets than for C- or D-felony dockets (51%). The citywide increase in the proportion of dockets transferred to the upper court primarily reflects an increase in the rate of transfer for the dockets with C- or D-felony charges, a 15 percentage point increase, compared to an increase of only three percentage points for dockets with B-felony charges. The relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is particularly strong in Brooklyn where 60 percent of B-felony dockets were transferred to the upper court compared to only 23 percent of the C- or D-felony dockets. In Manhattan, 63 percent of B-felony dockets but barely half of C- or D-felony dockets were transferred to the Supreme Court, and the comparable figures for Queens are 67 percent and 49 percent, respectively. Nearly all of the Bronx dockets 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 2006 for JO cases was three, the same as in 2005. Examination of length of case by borough also shows no change between 2005 and 2006. The median number of appearances in lower court was highest in Queens (7 appearances), followed by Brooklyn and Manhattan (3 appearances). In the Bronx, the median number of appearances was 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 decreased slightly for the small number of juveniles released on bail at arraignment. The median number of days in Criminal Court was just over two weeks, nearly six days shorter than in 2005, despite the stability of the number of appearances in the lower court by both borough and release status (Table 3d). The citywide decrease is reflected in Brooklyn, where cases took five days less to reach disposition in the lower court in 2006 than in 2005. The decrease was much larger in Manhattan Criminal Court (from 51 days to 23 days). The median number of days in lower court in the Bronx was zero days, since nearly every case was transferred to the upper court at arraignment in Criminal Court. The median number of days in Criminal Court was longest in Queens (75 days, up from 66 in 2005).

-32Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 (27 days, down from 38 days in 2005) or on bail (40 days, compared to 37 days in 2005) at arraignment was much 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 (31 days, compared to 7.5 days). This at least in part reflects the overrepresentation of the Bronx, the borough with the shortest length-of-case, in the B-felony category. In each borough except Queens, the median number of days in Criminal Court for the bail-set-and-not-made category was virtually the same for B felony as for lesser-severity cases. In Queens, B felony cases took three months to complete processing in the lower court, compared to less about two months for cases with lower charges.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=199)

Percentage

1.5 0.5

53.8

34.2

4.5

5.5

Manhattan (N=125)

0.8 4.8

45.6

41.6

7.2

Juvenile Offenses Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=156)

4.5 1.3

52.6

28.8

5.1

7.7

Murder 2 Robbery 2

Queens (N=137)

Robbery 1 Other*

2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

0.7

46.0

41.6

1.5

10.2

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough:

Citywide (N=617)

7.5

1.9 1.5

50.1

36.0

3.1

-33-

199

100.0%

2 1 0

156

45 0 0 3

7 82 8 1 3 0 0 1 3 0

105

100.0%

28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

30.8%

4.5% 52.6% 5.1% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0%

67.3%

1.3% 0.6% 0.0%

1.9%

125

52 1 4 0

1 57 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0

6 0 0

100.0%

41.6% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0%

45.6%

0.8% 45.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

49.6%

4.8% 0.0% 0.0%

4.8%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

57 1 3 0

1 63 2 0 2 1 0 7 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

41.6% 0.7% 2.2% 0.0%

44.5%

0.7% 46.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.7% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%

55.5%

0.0%

Queens %

137

9 1 0

617

222 2 8 7

239

12 309 19 2 7 4 3 9 3 0

100.0%

36.0% 0.3% 1.3% 1.1%

38.7%

1.9% 50.1% 3.1% 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.0%

59.6%

1.5% 0.2% 0.0%

1.6%

CITYWIDE %

368

TOTAL

68 0 1 4

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

34.2% 0.0% 0.5% 2.0%

36.7%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

62.8%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.5%

1.5% 53.8% 4.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

125

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

3 107 9 1 2 2 0 1 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-34-

100%

[617]

Citywide

[137]

Queens

[125]

Manhattan

[156]

Bronx

[199]

Brooklyn

50%

(15.9)

(28.5)

(0.8)

25%

(40.8)

50%

75%

(64.8)

(59.1)

(58.4)

Percentage Transferred to Supreme Court

25%

(46.7)

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

(19.3)

(12.4)

(1.9)

(25.6)

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(27.6)

Dismissals Transfers To Supreme Court Transfers To Family Court

2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

(98.1)

-35-

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

10.0%

(N=10)

A Felonies

90.0%

Percent

17.7% 9.2%

(N=368)

B Felonies

73.1%

22.6%

26.4%

Dismissals

(N=239)

C or D Felonies

51.0%

Transfers to Supreme Court Transfers to Family Court

2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

19.3% 15.9%

(N=617)

All Charges

64.8%

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 2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

0.5%

1.9%

4.8%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 1 0

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 6 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

125

62.8%

105

67.3%

49.6%

34 75 16 0

27.2% 60.0% 12.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 104 1 0

0.0% 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 39 0 0

37.1% 62.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

36.7%

30.8%

17 17 39 0

23.3% 23.3% 53.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 47 1 0

0.0% 97.9% 2.1% 0.0% 100.0%

199

100.0%

156

51 93 55 0

25.6% 46.7% 27.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 153 3 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 10

1.6%

0 9 1 0

0.0% 90.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

55.5%

368

59.6%

8 51 17 0

10.5% 67.1% 22.4% 0.0% 100.0%

65 269 34 0

17.7% 73.1% 9.2% 0.0% 100.0%

45.6%

44.5%

239

38.7%

28 28 1 0

49.1% 49.1% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

9 30 22 0

14.8% 49.2% 36.1% 0.0% 100.0%

54 122 63 0

22.6% 51.0% 26.4% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

125

100.0%

137

100.0%

617

100.0%

0.0% 98.1% 1.9% 0.0% 100.0%

51 73 1 0

40.8% 58.4% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

17 81 39 0

12.4% 59.1% 28.5% 0.0% 100.0%

119 400 98 0

19.3% 64.8% 15.9% 0.0% 100.0%

B Felonies (N=368)

(N=9)

4.5

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=236)

C or D Felonies

3.5

4.5

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=613)

All Charges

4 3

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

-38-

-39-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 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

2.0

1.0

3.0

0 0 0 1

2.0

0 1 0 1

1.0 1.0

0 0 0 6

3.0

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 8

1.0 3.0

125

3.0

105

1.0

3.0

7.0

368

3.0

43 5 77 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

53 2 47 3

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

31 3 28 0

4.0 3.0 3.0 -

10 2 64 0

5.0 10.0 7.0 -

137 12 216 3

3.0 4.5 3.0 1.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

7.0

236

3.0

46 1 25 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

37 3 7 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

33 3 20 1

4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

17 3 40 0

5.0 7.0 7.0 -

133 10 92 1

3.0 3.5 4.5 3.0

198

3.0

154

1.0

125

3.0

136

7.0

613

3.0

89 6 102 1

3.0 5.0 3.0 2.0

90 6 54 4

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

64 6 48 7

4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

27 5 104 0

5.0 7.0 7.0 0.0

270 23 308 12

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 4 cases for which the release status at arraignment was not applicable or not available.

B Felonies (N=368)

(N=9)

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

27.5

13.5

(N=236)

C or D Felonies

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

(N=613)

All Charges

27.5

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 2006 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

0.0

4.5

4.0

0 0 0 1

3.0

0 1 0 1

0.0 0.0

0 0 0 6

4.5

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 8

0.0 4.0

125

21.0

105

0.0

19.5

85.0

368

7.5

43 5 77 0

47.0 55.0 5.0 -

53 2 47 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

31 3 28 0

185.0 5.0 5.0 -

10 2 64 0

60.0 150.0 91.5 -

137 12 216 3

23.0 53.0 5.0 0.0

37.5

0.0

54.0

63.5

236

31.0

46 1 25 0

44.5 2.0 5.0 -

37 3 7 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

33 3 20 1

113.0 40.0 5.0 3.0

17 3 40 0

64.0 41.0 66.5 -

133 10 92 1

39.0 27.5 13.5 3.0

198

24.0

154

0.0

125

23.0

136

75.0

613

15.0

89 6 102 1

47.0 53.0 5.0 3.0

90 6 54 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

64 6 48 7

138.0 40.0 5.0 4.0

27 5 104 0

63.0 41.0 76.0 -

270 23 308 12

27.5 40.0 5.0 3.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 4 cases for which the release status at arraignment was not applicable or not available.

-42Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2006 (481) is higher than in 2005 (353) or 2004 (294) and is higher than any year in this reporting series since 1995 when 486 cases entered the upper court. The recent increase primarily reflects the increase in Bronx JO cases transferred to Supreme Court (230, up from 154 in 2005 and from only 82 in 2004) in accordance with the restructuring of the Bronx courts. However, if Bronx cases are excluded from the comparison, the citywide volume of cases that reached Supreme Court still increased by 52 cases. The volume of new JO cases in the upper court increased by nine in Brooklyn (to 98), and by 15 in Manhattan (to 71). The increase in Queens (to 82 from 54 follows an equivalent decrease between 2004 and 2005). 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 seconddegree robbery are still the most common charges. These charges together accounted for eight of every ten JO cases entering the upper court in 2006, slightly more than they did in the previous reporting period. Although second-degree murder and attempted seconddegree murder charges accounted for less than two percent of all arrests during this reporting period, these charges accounted for six percent of cases that reached the upper court in the period, compared to seven percent in 2005. Similarly, first-degree robbery accounted for a fifth of all juvenile arrests during 2005, but for nearly half of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together accounted for a quarter of the JO arrests but nearly two thirds of cases that reached the 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, nearly one in every five defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2006 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, about the same as in 2005. More juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance in 2006 (37%) than did in 2005 (28%), but fewer 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 (32%, down from 43%). Most of the citywide change since 2005 seems to reflect the decrease in cases continued at the first appearance in both the Bronx (52%, down from 71%) and Manhattan (18%, down from 39%) and the concomitant increase in cases with not-guilty pleas (29%, up from 1% in the Bronx, and 72%, up from 61% in Manhattan). As these figures suggest, differences across the boroughs in outcomes at the first appearance are dramatic. Queens again showed the highest proportion of cases in which the juveniles pled guilty. More than eight 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 decreased again (to barely 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

4%, from 6% in 2005, 12% in 2004 and 19% in 2003) but the rate of early pleas increased in Brooklyn (to 13%, from 6%). In Manhattan, only one juvenile pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. Twelve percent of Bronx cases were transferred to the Family Court, compared to only nine percent of JO cases in Brooklyn, six percent in Manhattan and none of the cases in Queens. Most of the cases transferred to the Family Court (27 of 39) or dismissed (7 of the 9) at the initial upper court appearance 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%), 2005 (91%) and during the current reporting period (84%). In the Bronx, however, the rate was far lower during those years (26%, 15%, 20%, 5%, 19%, 12%, 6%, respectively, and down to 4% during the current reporting period). Few juveniles pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance in any reporting period in Brooklyn or Manhattan. In 2006, 13 juveniles in Brooklyn and one juvenile 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 their own recognizance or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in six of every ten cases, higher than in the previous reporting period (54%). In 2006 compared to 2005, juveniles were equally likely to be released on recognizance (41%) and somewhat more likely to secure release on bail (19%, up from 13%). The citywide proportion of cases in which juveniles were held on bail decreased (to 24%, down from 28%) while the proportion of cases in which juveniles were held with no bail set at this early stage of Supreme Court prosecution decreased (to 16%, from 18% in 2005 and from 26% in 2004). As shown in Table 4c, juveniles were released on bail or on their own recognizance as of the first appearance in the upper court in 59 percent of the cases with B-felony charges and in 65 percent of those with C- or D-felony charges. However, most of the difference is attributable to the proportion released on recognizance. Juveniles who faced more severe felony charges were less likely to be released on recognizance (38%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (48%). 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

The stability in the proportion of cases with juvenile defendants released on ROR as of the first appearance in Supreme Court is not apparent in each borough. In fact, the rate of ROR changed by less than three percentage points in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Manhattan but decreased by ten percentage points in Queens. Nearly half of the juveniles in cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx were released on their own recognizance at the first appearance in the upper court, compared to only 28 percent of those in Queens and a quarter of those in Manhattan. The citywide increase in the proportion of juveniles released on bail is reflected in each borough, although the increase is very small in Manhattan. The rate of release on bail increased by six percentage points in the Bronx (to 10%), by ten percentage points in Brooklyn (to 30%), and by 14 percentage points in Queens (to 31%). When the proportions released on bail and on recognizance at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, however, the overall rate of release is greatest in Brooklyn (78%, up from 68%) compared to the other boroughs (nearly 60% in Queens, up from 55%, 59% in the Bronx, up from 51%, and 43% in Manhattan, up from 41%). Exhibit 4D presents the median number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court for each case in the upper court, for each charge class, separately for each release status. Only cases for which each of the data elements were available are included in the calculations. The data show that cases moved far more slowly in 2006 than in the previous year, but that cases took about as long as they did in 2004. In 2006, citywide, it took a median of two weeks to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), compared to only five days in 2005 but roughly two weeks in 2004. The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity. 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 decreased from just over two weeks to 11 days. In the Bronx, the median number of days increased to three weeks from only four days in 2005. The longest median number of days from Criminal to Supreme Court occurred in Brooklyn where over five weeks elapsed, about the same as in 2005. 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: 2006 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 48.2%

Murder 2 2.3%

Att. Murder 2 3.5%

Other* 6.9%

Assault 1 7.3% Robbery 2 31.8%

(N=481)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=98)

Percentage

5.1 2.0

64.3

18.4

6.1

4.1

Bronx (N=230)

5.2 1.3

43.5

31.7

10.9

7.4

Manhattan (N=71) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Murder 2 Robbery 2

Juvenile Offenses Attempted Murder 2 Robbery 1 Assault 1 Other*

8.5

38.0

46.5

7.0

2006 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=82)

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

51.2

35.4

4.9

8.5

-46-

100.0%

3 1 0

230

73 0 0 4

12 100 25 1 3 2 0 2 4 0

149

100.0%

31.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

33.5%

5.2% 43.5% 10.9% 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 0.0%

64.8%

1.3% 0.4% 0.0%

1.7%

33 0 4 0

0 27 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

6 0 0

100.0%

46.5% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0%

52.1%

0.0% 38.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

39.4%

8.5% 0.0% 0.0%

8.5%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

29 0 3 0

0 42 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

35.4% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0%

39.0%

0.0% 51.2% 4.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%

61.0%

0.0%

Queens %

11 1 0

481

153 0 8 5

166

17 232 35 1 5 4 0 5 4 0

100.0%

31.8% 0.0% 1.7% 1.0%

34.5%

3.5% 48.2% 7.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0%

63.0%

2.3% 0.2% 0.0%

2.5%

CITYWIDE %

303

TOTAL

18 0 1 1

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

18.4% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

20.4%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

77.6%

2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2.0%

5.1% 64.3% 6.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

Brooklyn N %

5 63 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2006 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-47-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=98)

Percentage

13.3

53.1

2.0

8.2

19.4

4.1

Bronx (N=230)

3.5

29.1

3.0

11.7

51.7

0.9

Manhattan (N=71)

1.4

71.8

5.6

18.3

2.8

Disposition Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Transfer To Family Court Continued

Queens (N=82)

84.1

12.2

3.7

Dismissed Bench Warrant

2006 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=481)

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

18.9

37.4

1.9

8.1

32.0

1.7

-48-

-49-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2006 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 %

2.0%

1.7%

8.5%

0 2 0 0 0 0

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

0 2 0 0 2 0

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

0 2 0 4 0 0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

77.6%

149

64.8%

39.4%

8 42 2 2 18 4

10.5% 55.3% 2.6% 2.6% 23.7% 5.3% 100.0%

7 38 6 18 79 1

4.7% 25.5% 4.0% 12.1% 53.0% 0.7% 100.0%

1 21 0 0 6 0

3.6% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 0.0% 100.0%

42 6 0 0 2 0

20.4%

33.5%

52.1%

5 8 0 6 1 0

25.0% 40.0% 0.0% 30.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 27 1 9 38 1

1.3% 35.1% 1.3% 11.7% 49.4% 1.3% 100.0%

0 28 0 0 7 2

0.0% 75.7% 0.0% 0.0% 18.9% 5.4% 100.0%

100.0%

230

100.0%

13 52 2 8 19 4

13.3% 53.1% 2.0% 8.2% 19.4% 4.1% 100.0%

8 67 7 27 119 2

3.5% 29.1% 3.0% 11.7% 51.7% 0.9% 100.0%

1 51 0 4 13 2

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 12

2.5%

0 6 0 4 2 0

0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

61.0%

303

63.0%

84.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 100.0%

58 107 8 20 105 5

19.1% 35.3% 2.6% 6.6% 34.7% 1.7% 100.0%

39.0%

166

34.5%

27 4 0 0 1 0

84.4% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

33 67 1 15 47 3

19.9% 40.4% 0.6% 9.0% 28.3% 1.8% 100.0%

100.0%

481

100.0%

1.4% 71.8% 0.0% 5.6% 18.3% 2.8% 100.0%

69 10 0 0 3 0

84.1% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0%

91 180 9 39 154 8

18.9% 37.4% 1.9% 8.1% 32.0% 1.7% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=80)

Percentage

47.5

30.0

12.5

10.0

ROR

Bronx (N=192)

49.9

9.9

35.4

5.7

Manhattan (N=65)

24.6

18.5

26.2

30.8

Queens (N=81)

Release Status Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made

2006 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

28.4

30.9

4.9

35.8

Remand

Citywide (N=418)

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

40.9

19.1

23.7

16.3

-50-

-51-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2006 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 %

2.5%

2.1%

3.1%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 3

0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

80.0%

123

64.1%

43.1%

30 19 9 6

46.9% 29.7% 14.1% 9.4% 100.0%

47 12 57 7

38.2% 9.8% 46.3% 5.7% 100.0%

9 5 9 5

32.1% 17.9% 32.1% 17.9% 100.0%

15 19 1 15

17.5%

33.9%

53.8%

8 5 0 1

57.1% 35.7% 0.0% 7.1% 100.0%

47 6 11 1

72.3% 9.2% 16.9% 1.5% 100.0%

7 7 8 13

100.0%

192

100.0%

38 24 10 8

47.5% 30.0% 12.5% 10.0% 100.0%

94 19 68 11

49.0% 9.9% 35.4% 5.7% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 8

1.9%

0 1 1 6

0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 75.0% 100.0%

61.7%

265

63.4%

30.0% 38.0% 2.0% 30.0% 100.0%

101 55 76 33

38.1% 20.8% 28.7% 12.5% 100.0%

38.3%

145

34.7%

20.0% 20.0% 22.9% 37.1% 100.0%

8 6 3 14

25.8% 19.4% 9.7% 45.2% 100.0%

70 24 22 29

48.3% 16.6% 15.2% 20.0% 100.0%

100.0%

418

100.0%

16 12 17 20

24.6% 18.5% 26.2% 30.8% 100.0%

23 25 4 29

28.4% 30.9% 4.9% 35.8% 100.0%

171 80 99 68

40.9% 19.1% 23.7% 16.3% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status was not available because the case was transferred to Family Court or because a bench warrant was ordered or stayed, or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed.

(N=258)

B Felonies

(N=8)

18.5

A Felonies

Median Number of Days

11.5

(N=141)

C or D Felonies

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

(N=407)

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 2006 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

29.5

16.5

7.0

15.5

0 0 1 1

24.0 35.0

0 1 0 3

3.0 30.0

0 0 0 2

7.0

0 0 0 0

0 1 1 6

3.0 24.0 18.5

42.0

118

5.0

13.0

0.0

258

14.0

30 19 9 5

34.0 43.0 52.0 32.0

44 12 55 7

13.5 45.0 5.0 9.0

9 5 9 5

15.0 11.0 15.0 4.0

15 18 1 15

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

98 54 74 32

17.0 20.0 5.0 0.0

19.0

46.0

8.0

0.0

141

15.0

8 4 0 1

3.5 47.0 0.0

46 6 11 1

47.0 51.5 12.0 85.0

7 7 8 11

17.0 16.0 7.0 4.0

8 6 3 14

0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0

69 23 22 27

22.0 22.0 11.5 0.0

37.5

186

21.5

11.0

0.0

407

14.0

38 23 10 7

29.0 43.0 51.5 32.0

90 19 66 11

25.0 50.0 5.0 10.0

16 12 17 18

16.0 15.5 10.0 4.0

23 24 4 29

0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0

167 78 97 65

19.0 20.0 7.0 0.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes cases for which the release status at the first appearance in the Supreme Court was not available because the case was transferred to Family Court or because a bench warrant was ordered or stayed, or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed. Also excludes cases in which the case was not formally transferred to the upper court until after the first hearing in Supreme Court.

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 373 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2006, an eighteen percent increase from the 317 cases disposed in the upper courts in 2005, which followed a thirty percent increase from 2004. However, while the citywide increase from 2004 to 2005 was primarily attributable to the restructuring of the Bronx courts, the volume of cases disposed in the upper court in the Bronx in 2006 was lower than in 2005 (by 12 cases). In contrast, more cases were disposed in the Supreme Court in the current reporting period in Queens (16), Manhattan (17), and especially Brooklyn (35). The charge composition of JO cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions at other milestones in this report (Exhibit 5A.1 and Table 5a). As in the previous reporting period, first-degree robbery was the most common charge at disposition in the upper court. Nearly half of the JO cases involved a charge of first-degree robbery (47%), compared to (55% in 2005 and only 42% in 2004). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly eight of every ten dispositions (78%) in 2006, compared to 84 percent in 2005 and 75 percent of dispositions during the previous reporting period. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge is assault, which accounted for eight percent of Supreme Court dispositions in 2006. A-felony charges account for nearly three percent of disposed cases (10 cases in 2006 compared to 2 in 2005), B-felony charges account for 62 percent of disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges account for the remaining cases. Borough differences in the distribution of JO disposition charges are large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). The proportion of cases with first-degree robbery charges at disposition ranged from 39 percent in the Bronx and Manhattan to 51 percent in Queens and 58 percent in Brooklyn. Borough differences in the proportion of cases disposed at the second-degree robbery level are also wide: Less than a quarter of Brooklyn cases were charged with second-degree robbery at disposition, compared to three of every ten disposed in the Bronx, over a third of those disposed in Queens, and 45 percent of those disposed in Manhattan. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first- or seconddegree robbery charges ranges from 69 percent in the Bronx to between 81 and 86 percent in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first-degree assault, which accounted for about eight percent of disposed cases citywide, but nearly 14 percent of cases disposed in the Bronx. 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, the same rate as in 2005 but far lower than the 85 to 93 percent rate of conviction in 2001 to 2004. The conviction rate remained high in Queens (100%, again) and in Manhattan (88%, compared to 90% in 2005) but decreased in Brooklyn (71%, down from 85% in 2005). The conviction rate in the Bronx changed little from 2005 to 2006 (down from 40% to 38%), but this follows a sharp drop (to 40%, from 85% in 2004). The decrease in the rate of conviction in the Bronx from 2004 to 2005 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

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 instead. Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were slightly less likely to show convictions (67%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (72%). 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 (77%, compared to only 54%) and the Bronx (42%, compared to only 31%) and negligible in Manhattan (93%, compared to 94%) and Queens (100% conviction rate at both levels). The citywide volume of JO cases adjourned for sentencing in 2006 (260) is high than that reported for 2005 (211) or 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 2006 (49) was comparable to the volume in 2005 (55) and 2004 (54). The citywide increase in the volume of JO cases adjourned for sentencing is reflected in each of the other boroughs (an increase of 16, 17 and 22 cases in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn, respectively). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 64 percent of JO cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. This is higher than the 58 percent released at disposition in 2005, 56 percent released in 2004 and the 61 percent released at disposition in 2003. The juveniles were about as likely to secure release on recognizance (42%, compared to 44% in 2005) but more likely to post bail (21%, up from 15%, in 2005). 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 only four percent of disposed JO cases was the juvenile in detention because the bail could not be met. The juveniles were remanded with no bail set in a third of the disposed cases. The rates of release for juveniles in the JO cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period varied by borough. In 2006, the highest rates of release at disposition was in Brooklyn (70%, up from 65%), followed by Manhattan (66%, up from 49%), and the rate of release was lower in the Bronx (59%, down from 65%) and Queens (58%, up from 52%). The picture is similar when ROR rates at dispositions are considered. More than half of the defendants (52%) in JO cases were released on recognizance at disposition in Manhattan, compared to 47 percent in the Bronx, 43 percent in Brooklyn, and only 31 percent in Queens. The Manhattan ROR rate is twelve percentage points higher in 2006 compared to 2005, the Bronx ROR rate is nine percentage points lower, while the rates in Brooklyn and Queens changed little. The rates of release on bail at disposition increased in each of the boroughs (to 27% from

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

19% in Brooklyn, to 27% from 20% in Queens, to 14% from 9% in Manhattan, and to 12% from 9% in the Bronx). 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, about half of the cases reach disposition in a JO Part, about the same as in 2005, but lower than in 2004 when 60 percent were disposed in the JO Parts, and lower than in the 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 (92%), followed by Brooklyn (79%) and the Bronx (36%), and the lowest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Queens (6%), as in previous reporting periods. The low proportion disposed in the JO Part in Queens seems to reflect, at least in part, the frequency 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 low proportion of cases disposed in the JO Part in the Bronx reflects the 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. Before restructuring, more than half of the Bronx cases were disposed in the JO Part. 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. 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 (84%, down from 91%) than for the non-JO Parts (53%, up from 46%). The low conviction rates for nonJO Parts primarily reflects the low conviction rate in non-JO Parts in the Bronx (12%, down from 17%). 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 is too low to permit conclusions as to whether the observed citywide difference in conviction rates might be attributable to the type of court part, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. It seems likely, however, that the 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

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

length of case data that was discussed in this section was taken from Exhibits 5E and 5F. However, Exhibits 5E and 5F exclude 61 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 (64) was three weeks lower 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 (5 appearances and 74 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (3 appearances and 43 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 four 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 the initial hearing in the upper court. The median number of appearances decreased in Brooklyn (from 8 to 6 appearances), in the Bronx (from 5 to 4.5 appearances), and did not change in Manhattan (10 appearances). 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 60 days in the Bronx, 102 in Brooklyn, and 175 in Manhattan. The average number of days remained the same in Queens, decreased by three days in the Bronx and by more than three 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, 84 days) reached disposition about as fast as did cases with juveniles who were released on bail (5.5 appearance, 84 days), much faster than did those with juveniles who were held on bail (9 appearances, 129 days). Cases with juveniles who were remanded with no bail set moved especially quickly (1 appearance, 0 days) reflecting the length-of-case pattern for Queens since Queens cases comprise nearly half of the cases in which the juvenile was remanded. 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. The median number of appearances was one and the median number of days was zero for the non-JO Parts in each borough. 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.

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 among the cases prosecuted in the JO Parts. The median number of appearances in the JO Part was higher in Manhattan and the Bronx (both 10.5) than in Brooklyn or Queens (both 7). Cases took more than seven months to reach disposition in the JO Part in the Bronx, nearly six months in the JO Part in Manhattan, more than four months in Brooklyn, and barely two months for the handful of cases disposed in the JO Part in Queens during this reporting period.

-59-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 46.6%

Att. Murder 2 2.9% Murder 2 2.4%

Assault 1 8.0%

Other* 8.1%

Robbery 2 32.0%

(N=373)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=102)

Percentage

6.9 1.0

57.8

23.5

7.8

2.9

Manhattan (N=67)

7.5

38.8

44.8

7.5 1.5

Robbery 1 Other*

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

3.2 1.6

38.9

30.2

13.5

12.7

Juvenile Offenses Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Bronx (N=126)

Murder 2 Robbery 2

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

Queens (N=78)

1.3

51.3

34.6

5.1

7.7

-60-

102

100.0%

38 0 0 4

4 49 17 0 4 1 0 1 5 0

2 1 0

126

100.0%

30.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

33.3%

3.2% 38.9% 13.5% 0.0% 3.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 4.0% 0.0%

64.3%

1.6% 0.8% 0.0%

2.4%

30 0 1 1

0 26 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

5 0 0

100.0%

44.8% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5%

47.8%

0.0% 38.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

44.8%

7.5% 0.0% 0.0%

7.5%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

27 0 3 0

0 40 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

34.6% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%

38.5%

0.0% 51.3% 5.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0%

60.3%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1.3%

Queens %

9 1 0

373

119 0 5 6

130

11 174 30 1 5 4 0 3 5 0

100.0%

31.9% 0.0% 1.3% 1.6%

34.9%

2.9% 46.6% 8.0% 0.3% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.3% 0.0%

62.5%

2.4% 0.3% 0.0%

2.7%

CITYWIDE %

233

TOTAL

24 0 1 1

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

23.5% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

25.5%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

73.5%

1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1.0%

6.9% 57.8% 7.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

Brooklyn N %

7 59 8 1 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 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=102)

Percentage

70.6

29.4

Manhattan (N=67)

88.1

Queens (N=78)

100.0

* Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=126)

38.1

61.9

11.9

Disposition Conviction Other*

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=373)

68.9

31.1

-62-

-63-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

A FELONIES:

1.0%

2.4%

7.5%

1.3%

2.7%

Conviction Other Subtotal

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

1 4

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 7

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

73.5%

64.3%

44.8%

60.3%

233

62.5%

Conviction Other Subtotal

58 17

77.3% 22.7% 100.0%

34 47

42.0% 58.0% 100.0%

28 2

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

47 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

167 66

71.7% 28.3% 100.0%

25.5%

33.3%

47.8%

38.5%

130

34.9%

14 12

53.8% 46.2% 100.0%

13 29

31.0% 69.0% 100.0%

30 2

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

30 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

87 43

66.9% 33.1% 100.0%

102

100.0%

126

100.0%

373

100.0%

72 30

70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

48 78

38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

59 8

88.1% 11.9% 100.0%

78 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

257 116

68.9% 31.1% 100.0%

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

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=74)

Percentage

43.2

27.0

6.8

23.0

ROR

Bronx (N=49)

46.9

12.2

6.1

34.7

Manhattan (N=59)

52.5

13.6

5.1

28.8

Queens (N=78)

Release Status Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

30.8

26.9

42.3

Remand

Citywide (N=260)

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

42.3

21.2

4.2

32.3

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.0%

1.7%

1.3%

1.2%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

79.7%

69.4%

49.2%

60.3%

169

65.0%

24 14 5 16

40.7% 23.7% 8.5% 27.1% 100.0%

15 5 1 13

44.1% 14.7% 2.9% 38.2% 100.0%

15 2 3 9

51.7% 6.9% 10.3% 31.0% 100.0%

16 15 0 16

34.0% 31.9% 0.0% 34.0% 100.0%

70 36 9 54

41.4% 21.3% 5.3% 32.0% 100.0%

20.3%

28.6%

49.2%

38.5%

33.8%

8 6 0 1

53.3% 40.0% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0%

8 1 2 3

57.1% 7.1% 14.3% 21.4% 100.0%

16 6 0 7

55.2% 20.7% 0.0% 24.1% 100.0%

8 6 0 16

26.7% 20.0% 0.0% 53.3% 100.0%

40 19 2 27

45.5% 21.6% 2.3% 30.7% 100.0%

100.0%

260

100.0%

32 20 5 17

43.2% 27.0% 6.8% 23.0% 100.0%

23 6 3 17

46.9% 12.2% 6.1% 34.7% 100.0%

31 8 3 17

52.5% 13.6% 5.1% 28.8% 100.0%

24 21 0 33

30.8% 26.9% 0.0% 42.3% 100.0%

110 55 11 84

42.3% 21.2% 4.2% 32.3% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status at Supreme Court disposition was not available because the case was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=102)

Percentage

79.4

20.6

Bronx (N=126)

35.7

64.3

Manhattan (N=67)

92.5

7.5

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=78)

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

6.4

93.6

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

Citywide (N=373)

51.7

48.3

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B Felonies (N=233)

2.3

14.3

(N=10)

13.3

29.5

A Felonies

14.3 14.3

56.2

JO Part Non-JO Part

33.3

71.4

84.4

JO Part Non-JO Part

50.0

66.7

Percent

Disposition Convicted Transferred to Family Court

4.8

16.2

51.5

32.4

(N=130)

C or D Felonies

JO Part Non-JO Part

11.3

83.9

Dismissed

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

3.6

15.0

52.8

32.2

(N=373)

All Charges

JO Part Non-JO Part

12.4

83.9

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

-67-

-68Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

1.0%

2.4%

7.5%

0 1 0 1

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 1 1 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 4 0 4

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

1.3%

CITYWIDE N % 10

2.7%

2 1 0 3

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 5 1 7

14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 75

73.5%

64.3%

44.8%

60.3%

233

62.5%

52 3 9 64

81.3% 4.7% 14.1% 100.0%

26 0 6 32

81.3% 0.0% 18.8% 100.0%

28 0 2 30

93.3% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

108 3 17 128

84.4% 2.3% 13.3% 100.0%

6 4 1 11

54.5% 36.4% 9.1% 100.0%

8 27 14 49

16.3% 55.1% 28.6% 100.0%

0 0 0

45 0 0 45

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

59 31 15 105

56.2% 29.5% 14.3% 100.0%

25.5%

33.3%

47.8%

38.5%

130

34.9%

9 3 4 16

56.3% 18.8% 25.0% 100.0%

11 0 1 12

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

29 0 2 31

93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

52 3 7 62

83.9% 4.8% 11.3% 100.0%

5 5 0 10

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 17 11 30

6.7% 56.7% 36.7% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

27 0 0 27

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

35 22 11 68

51.5% 32.4% 16.2% 100.0%

102

100.0%

126

100.0%

373

100.0%

61 7 13 81

75.3% 8.6% 16.0% 100.0%

38 0 7 45

84.4% 0.0% 15.6% 100.0%

58 0 4 62

93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

162 7 24 193

83.9% 3.6% 12.4% 100.0%

11 9 1 21

52.4% 42.9% 4.8% 100.0%

10 45 26 81

12.3% 55.6% 32.1% 100.0%

1 4 0 5

20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

73 0 0 73

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

95 58 27 180

52.8% 32.2% 15.0% 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=192)

(N=7)

9.5

A Felonies

21.5

Median Number of Days

(N=113)

C or D Felonies

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=312)

All Charges

5.5

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

-69-

-70-

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

34.5

7.0

17.0

30.0

17.0

0 0 0 2

34.5

0 1 0 2

7.0 10.0

0 0 0 1

17.0

0 0 0 1

30.0

0 1 0 6

7.0 21.5

7.0

10.0

1.0

192

6.0

33 14 10 6

7.0 7.0 9.0 5.0

17 4 29 5

3.0 13.0 9.0 1.0

9 3 8 7

9.0 8.0 10.0 10.0

16 15 1 15

1.0 1.0 18.0 1.0

75 36 48 33

6.0 5.0 9.5 1.0

3.0

5.0

11.0

1.0

113

5.0

12 6 0 1

4.0 4.0 1.0

24 3 3 0

5.0 11.0 7.0 -

8 11 6 10

11.5 11.0 9.0 10.0

8 5 2 14

1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0

52 25 11 25

5.0 8.0 7.0 1.0

6.5

7.0

10.0

1.0

312

6.0

45 20 10 9

7.0 6.5 9.0 5.0

41 8 32 7

5.0 10.0 9.0 4.0

17 14 14 18

11.0 11.0 9.0 10.0

24 20 3 30

1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0

127 62 59 64

5.0 5.5 9.0 1.0

100

200

300

400

500

B Felonies (N=192)

(N=7)

175.5

A Felonies

334.5

Median Number of Days

(N=113)

C or D Felonies

63.5

112

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=312)

All Charges

129

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 2006 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

319.0

150.0

342.0

504.0

327.0

0 0 0 2

319.0

0 1 0 2

84.0 301.0

0 0 0 1

342.0

0 0 0 1

504.0

0 1 0 6

84.0 334.5

130.0

129.0

194.0

0.0

192

84.0

33 14 10 6

114.0 137.5 165.0 17.0

17 4 29 5

70.0 223.0 184.0 0.0

9 3 8 7

213.0 217.0 129.0 194.0

16 15 1 15

0.0 0.0 506.0 0.0

75 36 48 33

91.0 63.0 175.5 0.0

42.0

61.5

175.0

0.0

113

62.0

12 6 0 1

92.0 35.0 0.0

24 3 3 0

61.5 184.0 54.0 -

8 11 6 10

260.5 175.0 127.5 146.0

8 5 2 14

0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0

52 25 11 25

63.5 112.0 91.0 0.0

115.5

99.0

175.0

0.0

312

6.0

45 20 10 9

114.0 115.5 165.0 17.0

41 8 32 7

66.0 184.0 127.5 57.0

17 14 14 18

231.0 175.0 127.5 185.0

24 20 3 30

0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0

127 62 59 64

84.0 84.0 129.0 0.0

B Felonies (N=233)

(N=10)

A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=130)

C or D Felonies

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=373)

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 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

26.0

7.0

1.0

30.0

5.5

1 0

26.0 -

1 2

16.0 5.5

1 4

17.0 1.0

0 1

30.0

3 7

17.0 1.0

7.0

4.0

10.0

1.0

233

5.0

64 11

7.0 1.0

33 48

13.0 1.0

30 0

10.0 -

2 45

11.5 1.0

129 104

9.0 1.0

2.5

4.0

11.0

1.0

130

3.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

16 10

6.0 1.0

12 30

8.5 3.0

31 1

11.0 4.0

3 27

7.0 1.0

62 68

9.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

102

6.0

126

4.5

10.0

1.0

373

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

81 21

7.0 1.0

46 80

10.5 1.0

62 5

10.5 1.0

5 73

7.0 1.0

194 179

9.0 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=233)

(N=10)

180

A Felonies

342

Median Number of Days

(N=130)

C or D Felonies

147

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=373)

All Charges

168

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 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

327.0

150.0

0.0

504.0

117.0

1 0

327.0 -

1 2

452.0 117.0

1 4

342.0 0.0

0 1

504.0

3 7

342.0 0.0

130.0

62.0

203.5

0.0

233

74.0

64 11

133.0 0.0

33 48

241.0 0.0

30 0

203.5 -

2 45

276.0 0.0

129 104

180.0 0.0

22.5

45.0

168.0

0.0

130

43.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

16 10

94.5 0.0

12 30

127.5 6.0

31 1

175.0 112.0

3 27

57.0 0.0

62 68

147.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

102

103.0

126

60.0

175.0

0.0

373

64.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

81 21

130.0 0.0

46 80

222.5 0.0

62 5

178.0 0.0

5 73

57.0 0.0

194 179

168.0 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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

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 233 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2006 were for juvenile offenders, more than the 203 sentences in 2005, and the 227 in 2004. The increase in sentences for JO cases was most dramatic in Brooklyn where the volume increased from 44 in 2005 to 73 in 2006. The volume of JO cases that reached sentencing increased by ten cases in Queens but decreased by seven in the Bronx and by two in Manhattan. Overall, more than half of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 2006 were custodial, as in previous reporting periods. This includes either imprisonment only (36%) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (17%). The proportion sentenced to imprisonment only was higher in 2005 (45%) and the proportion that received a “split” sentence was lower in 2005 (9%). The boroughs differ widely in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences and in the amount and direction of the change from the previous reporting period. The borough with the highest proportion of sentences that included any prison time was the Bronx (60%), the borough that showed the lowest rate in 2005 (49%). Conversely, the borough with the lowest proportion of incarcerative sentences was Queens (49%), the borough that showed the highest rate in 2005 (61%). The likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was close to the citywide rate in Manhattan (50%, down from 55%) and Brooklyn (55%, up from 52%). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was only slightly higher in cases for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (54%) than in cases for juveniles convicted at lesser felony levels (51%). During the previous reporting period, there was a wide difference in the proportion of sentences that included incarceration between cases in B-felony and C- or D-felony conviction charge severity categories (60% compared to only 42%). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2006 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 (42%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (27%). 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 smaller (57% 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 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, were far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to the JO Part than are juveniles in Queens. Even after Bronx court restructuring increased the volume of cases disposed in the non-JO Parts in the Bronx,

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

convictions were far more likely to take place in the JO Part. So the sentencing patterns in JO Parts were more likely to reflect the patterns characteristic of Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. In Queens, however, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, and Queens sentences accounted for the majority (75%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2006. 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 6C.2, 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 YO16 status in 82 percent of the sentences during the reporting period, higher than in 2005 (71%) but lower than in 2004 (86%). During this reporting period, juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were about as likely to receive YO status as were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (82%, compared to 81%). In 2005, the proportion granted YO status was lower in the JO Parts compared to the non-JO Parts (71%, compared to 92%). The boroughs varied widely in the likelihood of granting YO status in JO cases. Nearly all of the juveniles received YO status in Queens sentences (94%), as did 83 percent of those in Brooklyn and 78 percent in Manhattan but only 64 percent in the Bronx. Again, however, 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 2006 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 nine times in Supreme Court, and a median of 191 days elapsed between the first appearance and sentencing. During the previous reporting period, length of case was longer by two appearances and nearly six weeks. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (3 appearances, 50 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of nine appearances in Brooklyn (182 days), 13 appearances in the Bronx (303 days) and 26 appearances (637 days) in Manhattan. The median number of appearances decreased by one in Queens, as did the median number of days from the first Supreme Court appearance to sentencing. The number of appearances remained the same as in 2005 in the Bronx, but the median number of days to sentencing increased by nearly two months. In Brooklyn, the median number of appearances decreased by two but the number of days decreased by only a week. Both the median 16

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, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

number of appearances and the median number of days increased markedly in Manhattan (by 7 appearances and 7Â˝ months). The citywide data show no 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 nine appearances to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, regardless of the severity of the conviction charge, though cases in the lower severity category took 26 more days than did cases with B felony 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. However, examination of the length of case data by charge severity for each borough shows longer time to sentencing for JO cases with more severe charges in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan, but not Queens. 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 286 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 14Â˝ appearances and 286 days in the JO Parts and 3 appearances and 50 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 3 appearances citywide, Table 3c). Unfortunately, the data on length of case in Criminal

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

Court combine all JO cases, regardless of the disposition, and are not restricted to cases that reach the upper court. The speed of case processing in Supreme Court in Queens, especially in the non-JO Parts where the SCI cases appear, may reflect the use of SCIs. It is also possible that differences across the boroughs in the use of ATI 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=73)

Percentage

35.6

19.2

45.2

Bronx (N=48)

Imprisonment

41.7

18.8

39.6

Manhattan (N=40)

47.5

2.5

50.0

Sentence Imprisonment and Probation

Queens (N=72)

26.4

22.2

47.2

4.2

Probation

2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

Other

Citywide (N=233)

36.1

17.2

45.5

1.3

-81-

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal B FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.1%

2.5%

1.4%

1.3%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

76.7%

72.9%

55.0%

61.1%

157

67.4%

21 13 22 0

37.5% 23.2% 39.3% 0.0% 100.0%

12 9 14 0

34.3% 25.7% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 12 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

11 8 23 2

25.0% 18.2% 52.3% 4.5% 100.0%

54 30 71 2

34.4% 19.1% 45.2% 1.3% 100.0%

23.3%

25.0%

42.5%

37.5%

31.3%

5 1 11 0

29.4% 5.9% 64.7% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 5 0

58.3% 0.0% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 8 0

47.1% 5.9% 47.1% 0.0% 100.0%

7 8 11 1

25.9% 29.6% 40.7% 3.7% 96.3%

27 10 35 1

37.0% 13.7% 47.9% 1.4% 98.6%

100.0%

233

100.0%

26 14 33 0

35.6% 19.2% 45.2% 0.0% 100.0%

20 9 19 0

41.7% 18.8% 39.6% 0.0% 100.0%

19 1 20 0

47.5% 2.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 16 34 3

26.4% 22.2% 47.2% 4.2% 100.0%

84 40 106 3

36.1% 17.2% 45.5% 1.3% 100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

41.0

3.5

Non-JO Part

3.2

(N=73)

JO Part

4.8

25.8 25.8

45.2

C or D Felonies

11.2

45.2

50.0

(N=157)

Non-JO Part

17.5

26.3

52.6

Sentence Imprisonment and Probation

B Felonies

JO Part

20.0

39.0

Percent

Imprisonment

Probation

2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

43.1

3.4 Non-JO Part

20.2

27.0

49.4

(N=233)

All Felonies

JO Part

15.3

41.7

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=9)

(N=64)

44.4

11.1

44.4

JO Part

Brooklyn

34.4

20.3

45.3

Percentage

(N=36)

JO Part

16.7

66.7

(N=12)

(N=39)

JO Part

100.0

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

46.2

2.6

51.3

Sentence Imprisonment and Probation

Non JO Part

Bronx

50.0

19.4

30.6

Imprisonment

(N=5)

JO Part

Other

25.4

22.4

47.8

4.5

(N=67)

Non JO Part

Queens

40.0

20.0

40.0

Probation

2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

27.0

20.2

49.4

(N=144) (N=89)

JO Part

Citywide

41.7

15.3

43.1

3.4

-84-

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

2.1%

2.5%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1.4%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.3%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

76.7%

72.9%

55.0%

61.1%

157

67.4%

18 12 20 0 50

36.0% 24.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11 7 8 0 26

42.3% 26.9% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 12 0 22

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39 20 41 0 100

39.0% 20.0% 41.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 2 0 6

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 2 6 0 9

11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

11 7 22 2 42

26.2% 16.7% 52.4% 4.8% 100.0%

15 10 30 2 57

26.3% 17.5% 52.6% 3.5% 100.0%

23.3%

25.0%

42.5%

37.5%

31.3%

4 1 9 0 14

28.6% 7.1% 64.3% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 3 0 9

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 8 0 16

43.8% 6.3% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

19 2 21 0 42

45.2% 4.8% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0 3

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0 3

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 8 10 1 24

20.8% 33.3% 41.7% 4.2% 100.0%

8 8 14 1 31

25.8% 25.8% 45.2% 3.2% 100.0%

100.0%

233

100.0%

22 13 29 0 64

34.4% 20.3% 45.3% 0.0% 100.0%

18 7 11 0 36

50.0% 19.4% 30.6% 0.0% 100.0%

18 1 20 0 39

46.2% 2.6% 51.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1 2 0 5

40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

60 22 62 0 144

41.7% 15.3% 43.1% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 4 0 9

44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 8 0 12

16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 15 32 3 67

25.4% 22.4% 47.8% 4.5% 100.0%

24 18 44 3 89

27.0% 20.2% 49.4% 3.4% 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%

19.0

22.8

(N=68)

Non-JO Part

10.0

C or D Felonies

JO Part

10.5

90.0

(N=157)

Non-JO Part

77.2

89.5

B Felonies

JO Part

81.0

Percent

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2006 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

19.3

Non-JO Part

80.7

(N=228)

All Felonies

17.9

JO Part

82.1

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

-86-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=9)

(N=62)

66.7

33.3

JO Part

Brooklyn

85.5

14.5

Percentage

(N=36)

JO Part

18.2

81.8

(N=11)

Non JO Part

Bronx

77.8

22.2

(N=39)

JO Part

100.0

(N=1)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

79.5

20.5

Non JO Part

94.0

6.0

(N=3) (N=67)

JO Part

Queens

100.0

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

82.1

17.9

Non JO Part

80.7

19.3

(N=140) (N=88)

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 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

2.1%

2.5%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

1.4%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.3%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

78.9%

74.5%

55.0%

62.9%

157

68.9%

41 9 50

82.0% 18.0% 100.0%

20 6 26

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

18 4 22

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

81 19 100

81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

3 3 6

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 9 9

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

41 1 42

97.6% 2.4% 100.0%

44 13 57

77.2% 22.8% 100.0%

21.1%

23.4%

42.5%

35.7%

29.8%

12 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

13 3 16

81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 4 38

89.5% 10.5% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

22 2 24

91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

27 3 30

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

100.0%

228

100.0%

53 9 62

85.5% 14.5% 100.0%

28 8 36

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

31 8 39

79.5% 20.5% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

115 25 140

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

6 3 9

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

2 9 11

18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

63 4 67

94.0% 6.0% 100.0%

71 17 88

80.7% 19.3% 100.0%

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

C or D Felonies (N=71)

9.5

(N=156)

B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

(N=230)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 3 cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2006 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 2006 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

24.0

31.0

24.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

17.0

0 0 0 1

24.0

0 0 0 1

31.0

0 0 0 3

24.0

9.0

15.0

27.5

3.0

156

9.0

21 12 7 15

9.0 9.5 8.0 10.0

16 6 1 12

12.0 14.5 14.0 16.0

6 1 1 14

30.5 16.0 34.0 26.0

15 15 0 14

3.0 3.0 4.0

58 34 9 55

8.0 7.0 8.0 12.0

7.0

10.5

17.5

3.0

9.0

9 4 0 3

9.0 4.0 7.0

7 1 2 2

12.0 11.0 9.5 16.0

7 2 0 7

16.0 22.5 26.0

9 4 0 14

3.0 3.0 6.0

32 11 2 26

11.0 4.0 9.5 9.0

9.0

13.0

26.0

3.0

230

9.0

30 16 7 18

9.0 9.0 8.0 10.0

23 7 3 15

12.0 12.0 10.0 17.0

13 3 1 22

19.0 16.0 34.0 26.0

24 19 0 29

3.0 3.0 6.0

90 45 11 84

9.0 5.0 9.0 11.0

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

144

C or D Felonies (N=71)

155

(N=156)

165

224

B Felonies

134

238

Median Number of Days

138

209.5

(N=230)

All Charges

225 195

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 3 cases sentenced at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Release Status ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set andNot Made Remand

2006 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 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

529.0

403.0

526.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

529.0

0 0 0 1

403.0

0 0 0 1

526.0

0 0 0 3

526.0

196.0

288.0

721.5

49.5

156

177.0

21 12 7 15

214.0 263.0 225.0 154.0

16 6 1 12

234.0 453.0 288.0 335.0

6 1 1 14

633.0 427.0 729.0 729.5

15 15 0 14

51.0 50.0 31.0

58 34 9 55

144.0 134.0 238.0 165.0

99.5

295.0

514.5

57.0

203.0

9 4 0 3

133.0 69.5 196.0

7 1 2 2

400.0 357.0 155.0 394.5

7 2 0 7

413.0 658.5 677.0

9 4 0 14

68.0 49.0 31.0

32 11 2 26

224.0 63.0 155.0 138.0

182.0

303.0

637.0

50.0

230

191.0

30 16 7 18

179.0 180.5 225.0 155.0

23 7 3 15

276.0 451.0 203.0 386.0

13 3 1 22

506.0 427.0 729.0 695.5

24 19 0 29

56.5 50.0 33.0

90 45 11 84

209.5 87.0 225.0 195.0

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

C or D Felonies (N=73)

(N=157)

12.5

B Felonies

14.5

Median Number of Appearances

(N=233)

All Charges

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 3 cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2006 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 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

24.0

31.0

24.0

0 0

1 0

17.0 -

1 0

24.0 -

0 1

31.0

2 1

20.5 31.0

9.0

15.0

27.5

3.0

157

9.0

50 6

9.0 10.0

26 9

17.5 3.0

22 0

27.5 -

2 42

11.0 3.0

100 57

14.5 3.0

7.0

10.5

17.0

3.0

9.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

14 3

10.0 3.0

9 3

11.0 5.0

16 1

17.5 4.0

3 24

9.0 3.0

42 31

12.5 3.0

ALL CHARGES:

9.0

13.0

26.0

3.0

233

9.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

64 9

9.0 7.0

36 12

16.5 3.0

39 1

26.0 4.0

5 67

9.0 3.0

144 89

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=73)

(N=157)

280

B Felonies

286

Median Number of Days

(N=233)

All Charges

286

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because there were only 3 cases disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

2006 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 2006 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

529.0

403.0

526.0

0 0

1 0

529.0 -

1 0

403.0 -

0 1

526.0

2 1

466.0 526.0

195.0

288.0

721.5

49.5

157

175.0

50 6

197.5 71.5

26 9

408.0 70.0

22 0

721.5 -

2 42

279.5 49.0

100 57

286.0 50.0

115.0

295.0

448.0

57.0

203.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

14 3

150.5 42.0

9 3

357.0 209.0

16 1

514.5 112.0

3 24

80.0 49.5

42 31

280.0 50.0

ALL CHARGES:

182.0

303.0

631.5

50.0

233

190.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

64 9

195.0 42.0

36 12

394.5 80.0

39 1

637.0 112.0

5 67

153.0 49.0

144 89

286.0 50.0

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

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

-97Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 293 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, an decrease from the 353 juveniles released at arraignment during the previous reporting period but slightly more than the 282 released at that initial stage of prosecution in 2004. As shown in Exhibit 7A, only four juveniles (1.4%) failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 2006, fewer than in 2005 (14 juveniles, 4%) or other previous reporting periods. The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 2006 for juveniles arraigned in 2006, and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 2006. The failure-to-appear data presented in this report is restricted to appearances for juveniles who secure release at arraignment in Criminal Court, or, as discussed below, to appearances in Supreme Court for juveniles who were released as of the first appearance in the upper court. Many juveniles are released subsequent to arraignment while their cases are pending in Criminal Court and, similarly, many juveniles are released after the initial appearance in Supreme Court while their cases are pending in the upper court. Table 7a presents the failure-to-appear (FTA) rate17 by arraignment release status by borough for cases arraigned in Criminal Court. Three of the four juveniles released at arraignment who failed to appear during the reporting period had secured release on recognizance at arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court. The FTA rate in Manhattan was six percent of the 54 juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment. One of the juveniles who was released on recognizance at arraignment in Brooklyn Criminal Court failed to appear (1%) and none of the 27 juveniles similarly released in Queens missed a scheduled appearance in the lower court. None of the 90 juveniles released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx missed an appearance 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 (28 in 2006) 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 in which the juvenile secured release on ROR or on bail at the first appearance in the upper court was greater during this reporting period (251) than in 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 or 2000 (165, 145, 120, 90,

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 Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2006 (Second half of FY 2006 through First half of FY 2007; January - December 2006)

81, and 93, respectively). The FTA rate in Supreme Court (6%)18 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it has been in previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (8%, compared to 1.5% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (2.5%, compared to none in Criminal Court). The combined FTA rate in Supreme Court for juveniles released at the first appearance in the upper court on bail or on ROR is lower than the rate reported in previous years which ranged between nine and 13 percent. 18 The Supreme Court FTA data discussed here does not include failure to appear at the first Supreme Court appearance because the data were collected and reported by release status at the first appearance and the release status field is blank when a warrant is ordered.

-99-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 2006 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 98.6%

Yes 1.4%

(N=293)

0 7

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

1 202

203

0 1

0 101

0.5% 99.5% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

49.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4%

1.1% 98.9% 100.0%

46.3%

0 154

154

0 4

0 54

0 6

0 90

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

58.4%

3 122

125

0 7

0 57

0 7

3 51

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

45.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.6%

5.6% 94.4% 100.0%

43.2%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

0 150

150

0 3

0 112

112

0 8

0 27

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

74.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

18.0%

Queens %

4 628

632

0 15

0 324

324

0 28

4 261

265

0.6% 99.4% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

51.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.4%

1.5% 98.5% 100.0%

41.9%

CITYWIDE N %

* The total excludes 3 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

101

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

1 93

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 2006 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: 2006 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 6.4% No 93.6%

(N=251)

0 24

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

9 89

4 14

1 7

0 10

9.2% 90.8% 100.0%

100.0%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

18.4%

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

8.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

24.5%

10.5% 89.5% 100.0%

38.8%

8 222

230

2 36

0 11

0 68

1 18

5 89

3.5% 96.5% 100.0%

100.0%

5.3% 94.7% 100.0%

16.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.8%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

29.6%

5.3% 94.7% 100.0%

8.3%

5.3% 94.7% 100.0%

40.9%

10 61

2 4

2 18

5 12

0 12

1 15

14.1% 85.9% 100.0%

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

8.5%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

28.2%

29.4% 70.6% 100.0%

23.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16.9%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

22.5%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

7 75

0 1

1 28

1 3

1 24

4 19

8.5% 91.5% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.2%

3.4% 96.6% 100.0%

35.4%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

4.9%

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

30.5%

17.4% 82.6% 100.0%

28.0%

Queens N %

34 447

481

8 55

4 64

6 93

2 78

14 157

171

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

100.0%

12.7% 87.3% 100.0%

13.1%

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

14.1%

6.1% 93.9% 100.0%

20.6%

2.5% 97.5% 100.0%

16.6%

8.2% 91.8% 100.0%

35.6%

CITYWIDE N %

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued TOTAL

TOTAL

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

RELEASE STATUS MISSING:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

BAIL SET AND MADE:

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE:

4 34

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 2006 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.