Juveniles Report 07 by Administrator

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, INC. 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 2007

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

December 2008

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 2007

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director David James Hauser Research Assistant Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

December 2008

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2008 NYC Criminal Justice Agency When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2008. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2007. 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 12 14 15 16

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

17 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............................................................................................................................

31 35 36 37 38 39

-iv-

Table 3c: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ 42 Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 43 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..........................................................................

45 49 50 51 52

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

59 63 64 65 66 67 68

53 54 55 56 57

69 70 71 72 73

-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: Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Borough ............................................ Table 6d: Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough ............................................................................................................................ Exhibit 6E: Median Number of Appearances 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 Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough..

74 73 75 76 77 76 77 79 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 93 95

-vi-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES ........................................................ 97 Exhibit 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status.................................................................. 99 Table 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juvenile Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2007 .................................................................... 100 APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES........................................................................ 101

-1-

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 2007 (the second half of fiscal year 2007 and the first half of fiscal year 2008). 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 releasestatus 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 in assessing the likelihood that individual defendants, if released, would return for subsequent court appearances. CJA also 1

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

-2-

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, the Corporation Counsel will prosecute. Further, most referrals, even those concluded through a dismissal of the JO case in either Criminal or Supreme Court, are also reviewed by the 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 superior court information (SCI). The functional equivalent of an indictment, this instrument is usually used to expedite felony pleas. 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 in the second degree, where the weapon is possessed on school grounds.

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

-3-

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 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 2007 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. 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 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 detailed numbers and percentages that 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. Percentages may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Methodological Changes for the 2007 Report. Several improvements have been made in the methodology used to prepare the data for this report series.

-4-

1. Juvenile offenders are now selected for inclusion in the report by age as of the date of the incident rather than by age as of the date of the arrest. This change results in the inclusion of 32 16-year-old juveniles who were processed as juvenile offenders. 2. Every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible age-at-offense is now tallied. In the past, when a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrest was associated with more than one arrest number, only one of the arrests (the one that was docketed, if any were docketed) was included in the report. This change reflects the marked increase in the number of arrests that are assigned more than one arrest number by the NYPD in order to separate the processing of different cases. The result is an increase in the number of juvenile offender arrests tallied in the first section of this report. The data in subsequent sections will not be affected since no docketed arrests were excluded in previous reports. 3. The arrest number is the unit of analysis at all stages of prosecution. Previously, each docket in Criminal Court and each indictment in Supreme Court with a JO eligible defendant and JO eligible charge was tallied. 4. Criminal Court and Supreme Court failure-to-appear rates are now based on the number of juveniles released either on bail or on recognizance with at least one court date scheduled in either the lower or the upper court, respectively, during the reporting period. Previous warrant data were based on the number of juveniles released either at Criminal Court arraignment or at the first Supreme Court appearance. 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 66 arrests during this reporting period), Staten Island information is not included in the information presented after the Arrest Section. Thus, â&#x20AC;&#x153;citywideâ&#x20AC;? totals exclude the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period. Numbers for the subsequent reporting periods will be reviewed, and the information may be included in later time periods. Staten Island information is available on request. The number of cases with female defendants is also too low to be meaningful in tables past the Criminal Court arraignment decision point. That is, although the number of cases for which females were arrested during the reporting period was 244, only 56 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. 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. Pre-arraignment, 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.

-5-

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 defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 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 the unit of analysis at different stages of processing. A single arrested juvenile may be tallied multiple times, but only once for each arrest number assigned. Although a single arraigned case may be associated with more than one docket, it is tallied only once, according to the most severe disposition, charge, and release status. Although a Criminal Court case that is transferred to the Supreme Court may be associated with more than one indictment number, it will also be tallied only once, again according to the most severe disposition, charge, and release status. On the other hand, if a single arrested juvenile has more than one arrest number and more than one docketed case, and if the cases are combined or consolidated in a single indictment in the Supreme Court, each arrest will continue to be tallied separately. However, most arrests are represented by one docket and, if transferred to the upper court, have only one indictment number and most indictment numbers are associated with only one arrest. Of course, 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 1,995 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. Less than three of every ten of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,444 cases (72%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, six of every ten were transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (76%). 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.

-6-

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Not Applicable

296 (55%)

240 (45%)

1,995

1,444 (72%) 551 (28%)

CC Arraignments

541

5 (<1%) 536 (99%)

CC Dispositions

546

SC 1st Appearances

320

36 (11%) 284 (89%)

186 (67%)

SC Dispositions

309

74 (24%) 235 (76%)

144 (62%)

Arrests

211 (39%) 335 (61%) data not available data not available 6

167 (33%)

88 (38%)

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 279 cases, not 320, because the release status data is not relevant for the cases that were dismissed (4) and is not available for the cases transferred to the Family Court (32) at the first appearance nor for the cases in which a bench warrant was ordered or stayed (5).

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 232, not 235, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence. In three cases the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1,995 arrests for JO offenses in 2007. This is higher than the 1,887 arrests reported for 2006, but, as explained earlier, the arrest-level data for 2007 is not comparable to the data reported for previous years because of changes in the way JO arrests are tallied. Specifically, juvenile offenders were selected for inclusion in this report by their age as of the date of the incident rather than by their age as of the date of the arrest. This change resulted in the inclusion of 32 16-year-old juveniles who were processed as juvenile offenders in 2007, but 16-year-olds were not included in previous reports. In addition, every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible age-at-offense was tallied. This change was implemented to address the marked increase in arrests that are assigned more than one arrest number by the NYPD in order to separate the processing of different cases. In the past, when a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrest was associated with more than one arrest number, only one of the arrests (the one that was docketed, if any were docketed) was included in the report. The change resulted in an increase in the number of juvenile offender arrests tallied in the first section of this report. The data in subsequent sections will not be affected since no docketed arrests were excluded in the previous tallies. 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 two thirds of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly eight of every ten juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2007, three of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., seconddegree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson). After first- and second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge in 2007 was burglary in the second degree, which accounted for five percent of the arrests. This was followed by possession of a weapon in the third degree and possession of a weapon in the second degree, which accounted for nearly five percent and nearly 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 79 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 94 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 have been included in this report as a JO arrest. As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, type of offense at arrest varied little across the boroughs in 2007. Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in the four largest boroughs and the proportion this charge represented of all JO arrests ranged from 64 percent in the Bronx to 69 percent in Manhattan and Queens. Arrests for one of the weapon charges ranged from six percent in Queens to ten percent in the Bronx (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 one percent of the JO arrests in 2007. Exhibit 1B shows that six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of the offense. As discussed above, for prior reporting periods, juvenile offenders were

-8-

identified on the basis of their age at arrest. The increased availability of the date of the offense permitted improvement to the selection criteria. The juveniles in JO arrests in the Bronx and Manhattan were slightly more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense (64% and 63%, respectively) than were those in Brooklyn (61%), or in Queens (57%) or Staten Island (56%). There were 32 JO cases included in the 2007 report in which the juvenile was over 16 at arrest and therefore would not have been selected for prior reporting periods. There were no JO arrests involving thirteen-year-olds in this reporting period. Table 1b presents the distribution of age, by the severity of the JO arrest charge, for each borough. In each borough, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds accounted for more JO arrests than did younger arrestees. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (88%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Queens (16%), followed by Brooklyn (13%) arrestees were more likely to be female than were those in the Bronx (11%), Manhattan (8%) or Staten Island (6%). Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, only six percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges in 2007 were female, compared to nearly 14 percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. However, the boroughs vary widely: In Queens, nearly a fifth of juveniles charged with C- or Dfelonies were female compared to less than two percent of those charged with B felonies. In the Bronx, females accounted for 11 percent of JO arrests regardless of the severity of the arrest charge. Overall, JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, 72 percent of the 2007 JO arrests were not docketed.8 The lower proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2007 (28%) than in 2003 to 2006 (33% to 38%) likely reflects the change in the way JO arrests were tallied in this reporting series. For 2007, every arrest number associated with a JO eligible charge and JO eligible age at offense was tallied as a distinct arrest. 8

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: 2007 JO Arrests

Murder 2 and Att.Murder 2 Other <1% Robbery 1 17% 13% Assault 1 3%

Robbery 2 67% (N=1995)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2007 JO Arrests Murder 2 and Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 15%

12%

18%

16%

17%

2% 2%

80%

44%

60% 1% 69%

68%

67%

69% 64%

40% 44%

20%

14%

12%

<1%

16%

12%

11%

13%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=728)

(N=443)

(N=331)

(N=427)

Staten Is. (N=66)

Citywide (N=1995)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2007 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20)

TOTAL B FELONIES: 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 C OR D FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02)

TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N % 0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.3%

2 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

138

19.0%

19.9%

2 98 17 0 3 14 0 1 3 0

0.3% 13.5% 2.3% 0.0% 0.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%

2 55 23 0 1 7 0 0 0 0

0.5% 12.4% 5.2% 0.0% 0.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4 53 8 0 5 5 0 1 1 0

588

80.8%

355

80.1%

497 18 43 30

68.3% 2.5% 5.9% 4.1%

285 26 24 20

728

100.0%

443

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.2%

1 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

23.3%

15.9%

1.2% 16.0% 2.4% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%

2 53 3 0 2 5 0 0 3 0

0.5% 12.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

0 7 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0

254

76.7%

358

83.8%

64.3% 5.9% 5.4% 4.5%

228 2 12 12

68.9% 0.6% 3.6% 3.6%

294 38 13 13

100.0%

331

100.0%

427

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

3 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

21.2%

385

19.3%

0.0% 10.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 266 52 0 11 36 1 2 7 0

0.5% 13.3% 2.6% 0.0% 0.6% 1.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%

78.8% 1607

80.6%

68.9% 8.9% 3.0% 3.0%

29 17 2 4

43.9% 1333 25.8% 101 3.0% 94 6.1% 79

66.8% 5.1% 4.7% 4.0%

100.0%

100.0% 1995

100.0%

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.

-12-

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough: 2007 JO Arrests 14

100% 80% 61%

64%

63%

39%

36%

37%

57%

66%

61%

44%

39%

60% 40% 20%

43%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=728)

(N=443)

(N=331)

(N=427)

Staten Is. (N=66)

Citywide (N=1995)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2007 JO Arrests Males 100%

Females

13%

11%

87%

89%

92%

16%

12%

80% 60% 40%

94%

84%

88%

20% 0% Brooklyn (N=728)

Bronx (N=443)

Manhattan (N=331)

Queens (N=427)

Staten Is. (N=66)

Citywide (N=1995)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 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 % 0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.3%

0 2 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

138

19.0%

19.9%

0 51 87

0.0% 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

0 30 58

0.0% 34.1% 65.9% 100.0%

588

80.8%

355

0 231 357

0.0% 39.3% 60.7% 100.0%

728 0 284 444

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.2%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 2 1

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

23.3%

15.9%

21.2%

385

19.3%

0 31 46

0.0% 40.3% 59.7% 100.0%

0 20 48

0.0% 29.4% 70.6% 100.0%

0 4 10

0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

0 136 249

0.0% 35.3% 64.7% 100.0%

80.1%

254

76.7%

358

83.8%

78.8%

1607

80.6%

0 129 226

0.0% 36.3% 63.7% 100.0%

0 90 164

0.0% 35.4% 64.6% 100.0%

0 165 193

0.0% 46.1% 53.9% 100.0%

0 25 27

0.0% 48.1% 51.9% 100.0%

0 640 967

0.0% 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%

100.0%

443

100.0%

331

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

0 159 284

0.0% 35.9% 64.1% 100.0%

0 121 210

100.0%

427

100.0%

1995

100.0%

0.0% 36.6% 63.4% 100.0%

0 185 242

0.0% 43.3% 56.7% 100.0%

0 29 37

0.0% 43.9% 56.1% 100.0%

0 778 1217

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 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 % 0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.3%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

138

19.0%

19.9%

127 11

92.0% 8.0% 100.0%

78 10

88.6% 11.4% 100.0%

588

80.8%

355

503 85

85.5% 14.5% 100.0%

728 631 97

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.2%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

23.3%

15.9%

75 2

97.4% 2.6% 100.0%

67 1

98.5% 1.5% 100.0%

14 0

80.1%

254

76.7%

358

83.8%

316 39

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

230 24

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

291 67

100.0%

443

100.0%

331

100.0%

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

394 49

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

305 26

92.1% 7.9% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 3

0.2%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

21.2%

385

19.3%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

361 24

93.8% 6.2% 100.0%

78.8% 1607

80.6%

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

48 4

92.3% 1388 7.7% 219 100.0%

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

427

100.0%

100.0% 1995

100.0%

359 68

84.1% 15.9% 100.0%

62 4

93.9% 1751 6.1% 244 100.0%

87.8% 12.2% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2007 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 15% 21% 28%

28%

28% 38%

80%

60%

40%

85%

79% 72%

73%

72% 62%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=728)

(N=443)

Manhattan

Queens

(N=331)

(N=427)

Staten Is. (N=66)

Citywide (N=1995)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

0.3%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

138

19.0%

19.9%

23.3%

29 109

21.0% 79.0% 100.0%

28 60

31.8% 68.2% 100.0%

18 59

23.4% 76.6% 100.0%

588

80.8%

355

80.1%

254

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

499 89

84.9% 15.1% 100.0%

292 63

82.3% 17.7% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

728

100.0%

443

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

528 200

72.5% 27.5% 100.0%

320 123

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

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.2%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

15.9%

21.2%

385

19.3%

9 59

13.2% 86.8% 100.0%

7 7

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

91 294

23.6% 76.4% 100.0%

76.7%

358

83.8%

78.8% 1607

80.6%

186 68

73.2% 26.8% 100.0%

327 31

91.3% 8.7% 100.0%

49 3

94.2% 1353 5.8% 254 100.0%

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

100.0%

331

100.0%

427

100.0%

100.0% 1995

100.0%

72.2% 27.8% 100.0%

204 127

61.6% 38.4% 100.0%

336 91

78.7% 21.3% 100.0%

56 10

84.8% 1444 15.2% 551 100.0%

72.4% 27.6% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 5419 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, fewer than in 2006 (635), 2005 (661), 2004 (580) or 2003 (620), but more than in 2001 (506) or 2002 (526), the years with the lowest volume of JO arraignments in this reporting series. The volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants was substantially higher prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The nearly 15 percent citywide decrease in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The volume changed little in Manhattan and Brooklyn, the boroughs that showed the sharpest decreases from 2005 to 2006. The decrease was very large in Queens, where only 91 juveniles were arraigned compared to 151 in 2006. The volume of arraignments also dropped in the Bronx, from 156 in 2006 to 123 in 2007. Brooklyn JO arraignments accounted for more than a third of the citywide volume. The Bronx and Manhattan each accounted for less than a quarter of JO arraignments citywide and Queens accounted for less than 17 percent of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that more than eight of every ten JO cases 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 seconddegree robbery charges were more common among the arrest charges. However, the proportion of first-degree robbery charges decreased from 49 percent in 2006 to 44 percent in 2007 while the proportion of second-degree robbery charges increased comparably (from 36% in 2006 to 41% in 2007). The differences between the 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, 24 percent of cases for juveniles charged with a B felony at arrest were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to more than eight of every ten of those with C- or Dfelony 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 varied somewhat by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. In 2007, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 35 percent in Manhattan and 40 percent in the Bronx to 46 percent in Brooklyn and 56 percent Queens. When first- and second-degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences were narrower because the boroughs with the highest proportions of juveniles arraigned on firstdegree robbery showed the lowest proportions of juveniles arraigned on second-degree robbery charges. Together, first and second degree robbery accounted for 84 to 88 percent of 9

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.

-18-

arraignments across the four largest boroughs. arraignment affidavit charges for the boroughs.10

Table 2a presents the full distribution of

There were very few dismissals (4) and only one transfer to Family Court at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 53 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2007, far higher than the 42 percent ROR rate in 2006 and even higher than the 51 percent released on ROR in 2005. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR increase was greatest in Queens (up 15 percentage points, to 33%), the borough with the lowest ROR rate in both 2006 and 2007, followed by the Bronx (up 14 percentage points, to 72%), the borough with the highest ROR rate in both reporting periods. The rate of ROR increased by seven percentage points in both Manhattan and Brooklyn (to 50% and 53%, respectively). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only 11 juveniles (2%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2007, with little difference by borough. The juveniles in JO arraignments in Queens were again most likely to be detained (66%), on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. Less than half of the juveniles were detained in JO arraignments in Brooklyn (45%) and Manhattan (49%) and only 26 percent were detained in the Bronx. Citywide, release rates varied 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 2007, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 43 percent (much higher than the 36% released on ROR in 2006 but equal to the 43% released on ROR in 2005), compared to 67 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (also much higher than the 52% in 2006 and even higher than the 63% in 2005). Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment are large and are apparent even within charge-severity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2007, the proportion released on ROR was highest in the Bronx (62%), followed by Brooklyn (52%), and Manhattan (26%) and lowest in Queens (24%). The borough differences were even wider at the C- and D-felony level, ranging from an ROR rate of only 52 percent in Queens to 83 percent in the Bronx. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 71 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 51 percent of males, a twelve percentage point increase for females and an eleven percentage point increase for males from 2006 to 2007. The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there were 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 10

As noted in the introduction, from arraignment forward, “all boroughs” and “citywide” reporting excludes the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period.

-19-

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 2007, nearly eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, more than in 2004, 2005 or 2006, but slightly less than the 83 percent recommended 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 87 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, comparable to the 88 percent recommended in 2006. 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 2007, the murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs but no juveniles 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 nearly nine of every ten of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2007 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, slightly lower than the 92 percent recommended in 2006. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2007 were only slightly more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (55% compared to 53%). Comparison of the ROR rates by recommendation in each borough showed higher ROR rates for recommended juveniles in Brooklyn (55% compared to 50%), Manhattan (52% compared to 46%), and especially Queens (32% compared to 17%), and a lower ROR rate for juveniles who were recommended (73%) than for those not recommended (85%) in the Bronx. However, very few juveniles were not recommended for ROR at arraignments in 2007 based on their school attendance and the expectation for someone to attend their arraignment (53 citywide, including 22 in Manhattan, 13 in the Bronx, 12 in Brooklyn and only 6 in Queens).

-20-

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2007 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 3%

Robbery 1 44%

Robbery 2 41%

Assault 1 Other 5% 6%

(N=541)

Murder 2 1%

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2007 JO Arraignments

Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

100%

Robbery 1 Other 7%

6% 5%

80% 32% 38%

41%

47%

49%

60%

40% 56% 47%

44%

40%

35%

20%

1% 2%

0% Brooklyn

(N=200)

Bronx (N=123)

Manhattan (N=127)

3% 1%

2% 1%

Queens (N=91)

Citywide (N=541)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2007 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

1.5%

3 0 0

1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

115

57.5%

51.2%

2 93 12 0 3 2 0 0 3 0

1.0% 46.5% 6.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

5 49 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

4.1% 39.8% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7 45 3 0 3 2 0 1 1 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

41.0%

48.8%

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

75 1 6 0

37.5% 0.5% 3.0% 0.0%

58 0 2 0

200

100.0%

123

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20)

TOTAL

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

1.1%

0.7%

1 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

4 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

48.8%

64.8%

299

55.3%

5.5% 35.4% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

2 51 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

2.2% 56.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0%

16 238 25 0 7 6 0 2 5 0

3.0% 44.0% 4.6% 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0%

51.2%

34.1%

238

44.0%

47.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

62 0 3 0

48.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

29 0 2 0

31.9% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0%

224 1 13 0

41.4% 0.2% 2.4% 0.0%

100.0%

127

100.0%

541

100.0%

0 0 0

-24-

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2007 JO Arraignments

ROR 100%

Bail Set and Made 1%

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

26%

80%

43%

43% 2%

44% 65%

60% 2%

3% 2%

40% 72%

53%

1% 53%

50%

20% 33%

0% Brooklyn (N=196)

Bronx (N=123)

Manhattan (N=126)

Queens (N=91)

Citywide (N=536)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 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 %

1.5%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

1.1%

0.7%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

111

56.6%

51.2%

49.2%

64.8%

295

55.0%

58 5 48 0

52.3% 4.5% 43.2% 0.0% 100.0%

39 1 23 0

61.9% 1.6% 36.5% 0.0% 100.0%

16 1 40 5

25.8% 1.6% 64.5% 8.1% 100.0%

14 1 44 0

23.7% 1.7% 74.6% 0.0% 100.0%

127 8 155 5

43.1% 2.7% 52.5% 1.7% 100.0%

41.8%

48.8%

50.8%

34.1%

237

44.2%

45 1 36 0

54.9% 1.2% 43.9% 0.0% 100.0%

50 1 9 0

83.3% 1.7% 15.0% 0.0% 100.0%

47 1 15 1

73.4% 1.6% 23.4% 1.6% 100.0%

16 0 15 0

51.6% 0.0% 48.4% 0.0% 100.0%

158 3 75 1

66.7% 1.3% 31.6% 0.4% 100.0%

196

100.0%

123

100.0%

126

100.0%

536

100.0%

103 6 84 3

52.6% 3.1% 42.9% 1.5% 100.0%

89 2 32 0

72.4% 1.6% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%

63 2 55 6

50.0% 1.6% 43.7% 4.8% 100.0%

30 1 59 1

33.0% 1.1% 64.8% 1.1% 100.0%

285 11 230 10

53.2% 2.1% 42.9% 1.9% 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 five cases disposed at Criminal Court arraignment for whom release status is not relevant.

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2007 JO Arraignments

Remand 2%

Bail Set/Not Made 45%

ROR 51%

Bail Set/Made 2%

Males (N=480)

Bail Set/Not Made 23%

Remand 5% ROR 71%

Females (N=56)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2007 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS MALES: 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 TOTAL* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

176

89.8%

101

82.1%

118

93.7%

93.4%

480

89.6%

91 6 77 2

51.7% 3.4% 43.8% 1.1% 100.0%

68 2 31 0

67.3% 2.0% 30.7% 0.0% 100.0%

59 2 53 4

50.0% 1.7% 44.9% 3.4% 100.0%

27 1 56 1

31.8% 1.2% 65.9% 1.2% 100.0%

245 11 217 7

51.0% 2.3% 45.2% 1.5% 100.0%

10.2%

17.9%

6.3%

6.6%

10.4%

12 0 7 1

60.0% 0.0% 35.0% 5.0% 100.0%

21 0 1 0

95.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 2 2

50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%

3 0 3 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

40 0 13 3

71.4% 0.0% 23.2% 5.4% 100.0%

196

100.0%

123

100.0%

126

100.0%

536

100.0%

103 6 84 3

52.6% 3.1% 42.9% 1.5% 100.0%

89 2 32 0

72.4% 1.6% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%

63 2 55 6

50.0% 1.6% 43.7% 4.8% 100.0%

30 1 59 1

33.0% 1.1% 64.8% 1.1% 100.0%

285 11 230 10

53.2% 2.1% 42.9% 1.9% 100.0%

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. * Excludes five cases disposed at Criminal Court arraignment for whom release status is not relevant.

-28-

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough: 2007 JO Arraignments

J5--Recommended J7C--Murder Charge 100%

J6--Not Recommended Recommendation Not Available 3% 1%

6% 2% 6%

14%

8% 2%

11%

3% 3%

10%

80% 17%

60%

86%

40%

85%

80%

79% 66%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=196)

(N=123)

(N=126)

(N=91)

(N=536)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2007 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

169

86.2%

104

84.6%

65.9%

79.1%

428

79.9%

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

93 5 70 1

55.0% 3.0% 41.4% 0.6% 100.0%

76 2 26 0

73.1% 1.9% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

43 2 36 2

51.8% 2.4% 43.4% 2.4% 100.0%

23 0 49 0

31.9% 0.0% 68.1% 0.0% 100.0%

235 9 181 3

54.9% 2.1% 42.3% 0.7% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

6.1%

10.6%

17.5%

6.6%

9.9%

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

6 1 5 0

50.0% 8.3% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 2 0

84.6% 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 12 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 5 0

16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

28 1 24 0

52.8% 1.9% 45.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0 0 0 0

2.0%

1.6%

3.2%

3.3%

2.4%

1 0 1 2

25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 0 8 4

7.7% 0.0% 61.5% 30.8% 100.0%

5.6%

3.3%

13.5%

11.0%

7.8%

3 0 8 0

27.3% 0.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 2 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 4 3

58.8% 0.0% 23.5% 17.6% 100.0%

6 1 3 0

60.0% 10.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 1 17 3

50.0% 2.4% 40.5% 7.1% 100.0%

196

100.0%

123

100.0%

126

100.0%

536

100.0%

103 6 84 3

52.6% 3.1% 42.9% 1.5% 100.0%

89 2 32 0

72.4% 1.6% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%

63 2 55 6

50.0% 1.6% 43.7% 4.8% 100.0%

30 1 59 1

33.0% 1.1% 64.8% 1.1% 100.0%

285 11 230 10

53.2% 2.1% 42.9% 1.9% 100.0%

Note: The numbers in bold are the juvenile recommendation category subtotals for each borough and citywide. The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes five cases disposed at Criminal Court arraignment for whom release status is not relevant.

-30-

-31-

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 546 cases reached disposition11 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, fewer than the 617 dockets disposed in 2006 and the 644 disposed in 2005. The citywide decrease is not reflected equally in each of the boroughs. There were 33 fewer cases disposed in the Bronx, 25 fewer in Queens and 21 fewer in Brooklyn, but eight more cases disposed in Manhattan. The distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arrest and arraignment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; more than eight of every ten were first- or second-degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 61 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, reflecting a slight decline (from 65%) after 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 Manhattan (41%, down from 58%), followed by Brooklyn (53%, up from 47%) and Queens (55%, down from 59%) and highest in the Bronx (100%, compared to 98% in 2006). 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: No Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from the Criminal Court in 2007, only three were transferred 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 2007 or 2006 and only two were dismissed in 2005, compared to 17 percent in 2004. The citywide decrease in the rate of transfer to the Supreme Court accompanied a five percentage point decrease in the rate of transfer to the Family Court and a nine percentage point increase in the rate of dismissal in the Criminal Court. The decrease in the rate of transfer to the Family Court occurred only in Brooklyn (down 8 percentage points) and Queens (down 11 percentage points). The increase in the dismissal rate occurred only in Queens (up 12 percentage points to 28%). There was little change in Brooklyn (up from 26% to 27%) and no change in the Bronx (0%). The proportion of cases disposed by dismissal increased 13 percentage points to 54 percent in Manhattan. 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 removals12 and may also suggest that there have been changes in those policies. 11

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 would not be subject to adult prosecution. Their only dispositions in Criminal Court can be dismissal or transfer to Family Court. 12

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

-32-

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, was higher when the charge was more severe. The rate of transfer to the Supreme Court was much higher (64%) for B-felony dockets than for C- or D-felony dockets (56%). The citywide decrease in the proportion of dockets transferred to the upper court primarily reflects a decrease in the rate of transfer for the dockets with B-felony charges, a nine percentage point decrease, compared to an increase of only five percentage points for dockets with C- or D-felony charges. The relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court was particularly strong in Queens where 60 percent of B-felony dockets were transferred to the upper court compared to only 44 percent of the C- or D-felony dockets. In Manhattan, 49 percent of Bfelony dockets but less than a third of C- or D-felony dockets were transferred to the Supreme Court, and the comparable figures for Brooklyn were 56 percent and 46 percent, respectively. All of the Bronx cases were transferred to the upper court as per the Bronx court restructuring. 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 by charge-severity category. 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 2007 for JO cases was two, down from three in 2006. Examination of length of case by borough also showed a decrease in Brooklyn (to a median of 2 appearances, down from 3) and Queens (to a median of 5 appearances, down from 7), and no changes in the other boroughs. The median number of appearances in lower court was highest in Queens (5 appearances), followed by Manhattan (3 appearances) and Brooklyn (2 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 decreased, from three to two appearances, for the two largest release status categories, ROR and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bail set not made.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Despite the decline in the median number of appearances in the lower court, the median number of days in Criminal Court increased sharply, from over two weeks in 2006 to over a month in 2007 (Table 3d). The citywide increase is reflected in Brooklyn (32 days, up from 24), Queens (92 days, up from 75), and especially Manhattan (92 days, up from 23). Some of the borough variation and 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 cases where the juvenile secured release on recognizance (40 days, up from 28 days in 2006) or on bail (102 days, compared to 40 days in

-33-

2006) at arraignment was much longer than the number of days elapsed for juveniles held on bail (5 days, unchanged) or remanded with no bail set (8 days, up from 3 days, but for only twelve cases in each year). This is in accordance with speedy trial regulations, which set more stringent time limitations for processing cases for defendants in detention. However, borough differences are still wide even within release status categories. 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 12 weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, a median of zero days elapsed from arraignment to disposition in the Bronx, seven weeks in Brooklyn, and more than three months in Manhattan and Queens. Thus, the changes in the citywide median data often reflect the relative shifts in the borough and release status composition. 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, B-felony cases took a median of four days longer to reach disposition in Criminal Court than did C- or D-felony cases (32 days, compared to 28 days). It is also important to keep in mind, however, that the data are reported by the release status set at arraignment. When bail is posted or the juvenile is released on recognizance after arraignment, the characteristically longer length of time to disposition for released juveniles is still reported in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bail set not madeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; category.

-34-

-35-

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough: 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

100%

Robbery 1 Other

80% 35% 34%

39%

47% 43%

60%

40% 49% 49%

44% 40%

38%

20%

1% 2%

3% 1%

4% 3%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=178)

(N=123)

(N=133)

(N=112)

(N=546)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20)

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

1.7%

3 0 0

1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

108

60.7%

51.2%

1 87 12 0 3 2 0 0 3 0

0.6% 48.9% 6.7% 0.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

5 49 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

4.1% 39.8% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7 50 7 0 4 3 0 1 1 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.7%

1.1%

3 0 0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

6 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

54.9%

60.7%

312

57.1%

5.3% 37.6% 5.3% 0.0% 3.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

5 55 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 0

4.5% 49.1% 2.7% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

18 241 30 0 9 8 0 1 5 0

3.3% 44.1% 5.5% 0.0% 1.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0%

0 0 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

37.6%

48.8%

45.1%

36.6%

228

41.8%

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

60 1 6 0

33.7% 0.6% 3.4% 0.0%

58 0 2 0

47.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

57 0 3 0

42.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0%

39 0 2 0

34.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0%

214 1 13 0

39.2% 0.2% 2.4% 0.0%

178

100.0%

123

100.0%

133

100.0%

112

100.0%

546

100.0%

TOTAL

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Dismissed Brooklyn (N=178)

Transferred to Family Court

Transferred to Supreme Court

(27%)

(19%)

(53%)

Bronx (N=123) (100%)

Manhattan (N=133) Queens (N=112)

(11%)

75%

50%

(41%)

(28%)

(17%)

Citywide (N=546)

100%

(54%)

(5%)

(55%)

(61%)

(28%)

25%

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

25%

50%

75%

Percentage Disposed in Supreme Court

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

100%

-38-

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Transferred to Supreme Court

100% 80% 65%

40%

31%

25% 20%

61%

56%

60%

28%

10%

13%

11%

A or B Felonies (N=318)

C or D Felonies (N=228)

All Charges (N=546)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

A FELONIES:

1.7%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

108

60.7%

51.2%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

31 16 61

28.7% 14.8% 56.5% 100.0%

0 0 63

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

37.6%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

17 19 31

25.4% 28.4% 46.3% 100.0%

178 48 35 95

B FELONIES:

ALL CHARGES: Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.7%

1.1%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 6

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

54.9%

60.7%

312

57.1%

33 4 36

45.2% 5.5% 49.3% 100.0%

16 11 41

23.5% 16.2% 60.3% 100.0%

80 31 201

25.6% 9.9% 64.4% 100.0%

48.8%

45.1%

36.6%

228

41.8%

0 0 60

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

39 2 19

65.0% 3.3% 31.7% 100.0%

15 8 18

36.6% 19.5% 43.9% 100.0%

71 29 128

31.1% 12.7% 56.1% 100.0%

100.0%

123

100.0%

133

100.0%

112

100.0%

546

100.0%

27.0% 19.7% 53.4% 100.0%

0 0 123

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

72 6 55

54.1% 4.5% 41.4% 100.0%

31 19 62

27.7% 17.0% 55.4% 100.0%

151 60 335

27.7% 11.0% 61.4% 100.0%

0 0 0

-40-

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Total

5 4

Remand

Median Number of Appearances

Bail Set and Not Made

3 2

1 0

A or B Felonies (N=314)

C or D Felonies (N=227)

All Charges (N=541)

-41-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES:* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

4.0

6.0

3.0

0 0 0 3

4.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

6.0

0 0 0 6

5.0

104

2.0

1.0

3.0

6.0

308

3.0

52 7 45 0

3.0 4.0 2.0 -

39 1 23 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

19 2 48 4

3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0

19 2 46 1

5.0 4.5 6.0 30.0

129 12 162 5

3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

227

2.0

37 1 29 0

2.0 4.0 2.0 -

50 1 9 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

40 1 17 1

3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0

18 3 20 0

4.0 4.0 4.0 -

145 6 75 1

2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0

174

2.0

123

1.0

132

3.0

112

5.0

541

2.0

89 8 74 3

3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0

89 2 32 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

59 3 65 5

3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0

37 5 66 4

5.0 4.0 5.5 7.0

274 18 237 12

2.0 4.0 2.0 3.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes five cases disposed at Criminal Court arraignment for whom release status is not relevant.

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR

150

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Days

115

125 102

102

100 75 50 25

32 5

28 5

A or B Felonies (N=314)

C or D Felonies (N=227)

All Charges (N=541)

-43-

Table 3d Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES:* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

5.0

108.0

32.5

0 0 0 3

5.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

108.0

0 0 0 6

32.5

104

35.5

0.0

53.0

101.5

308

32.0

52 7 45 0

50.5 102.0 5.0 -

39 1 23 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

19 2 48 4

122.0 112.0 5.0 5.0

19 2 46 1

154.0 114.0 89.5 477.0

129 12 162 5

41.0 102.0 5.0 5.0

28.0

0.0

98.0

88.0

227

28.0

37 1 29 0

49.0 149.0 4.0 -

50 1 9 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

40 1 17 1

102.0 294.0 92.0 12.0

18 3 20 0

91.5 88.0 79.0 -

145 6 75 1

36.0 115.0 5.0 12.0

174

32.5

123

0.0

132

92.0

112

92.0

541

31.0

89 8 74 3

49.0 102.0 5.0 5.0

89 2 32 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

59 3 65 5

106.0 118.0 7.0 5.0

37 5 66 4

117.0 88.0 87.0 109.5

274 18 237 12

40.5 102.0 5.0 8.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes five cases disposed at Criminal Court arraignment for whom release status is not relevant.

-44-

-45-

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2007 (320) is not comparable to the volume reported for previous periods because of changes to the way indictments were tallied. While each indictment had been tallied separately in the previous reports in this series, for the current report each case arraigned in Criminal Court was tracked onward. If a single case was associated with more than one indictment, only the first appearance on the first indictment was tallied in this section. All of the boroughs were about equally affected by the methodological change with regard to juvenile arrests associated with multiple indictments. However, in accordance with the restructuring of the Bronx courts, nearly all of the JO cases in the Bronx were transferred to the Supreme Court and were assigned an indictment number, and an additional indictment number was assigned in the event that the juvenile was indicted. Thus, the number of JO cases that were reported at the first appearance in Supreme Court in 2006 and the number reported for 2007 decreased between 14 and 22 cases in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens, but the decrease is far greater (109) in the Bronx . The charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,13 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), shows that first- and second-degree robbery were still the most common charges. These charges together accounted for more than eight of every ten JO cases entering the upper court in 2007, about the same as they did in the previous reporting period. First-degree robbery accounted for 13 percent of all juvenile arrests during 2007, but for nearly half (45%) of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together accounted for a fifth of the JO arrests but nearly six of every ten cases that reached the first appearance in Supreme Court (Table 4a). C- or D-felony charges comprised more than eight of every ten JO arrests, but only four of every ten JO cases that arrived in the upper court. In short, more serious JO charges were more likely to be represented among the cases of juveniles at the first appearance in Supreme Court than were less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, roughly one in every ten defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2007 pled guilty and three of every ten juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. Ten percent of the cases were transferred to the Family Court and a few cases (4) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (46%) were continued without a plea because the initial hearing in Supreme Court was probably not the actual Supreme Court arraignment but was instead a hearing or a pre-arraignment conference. Differences across the boroughs in outcomes at the first appearance are dramatic. Queens still showed the highest proportion of cases in which the juveniles pled guilty (52%), compared to six percent in Brooklyn. No juveniles in Manhattan or the Bronx pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. This finding reflects borough differences in plea policies and in the use of the Superior Court Information (SCI).14 The proportion of juveniles who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 58 percent in Brooklyn, to 49 percent in Manhattan, and 32 percent in Queens. None of the juveniles prosecuted in the Bronx pled not 13

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.

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.

-46-

guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. On the other hand, seven of every ten Bronx cases were continued at the first appearance compared to nearly half of Manhattan JO cases, a third of those in Brooklyn, and 15 percent of those in Queens. A quarter of the Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court as were only two other cases, both in Manhattan Supreme Court. Exhibit 4C presents the percentage of JO cases in which juveniles were released at the first appearance in Supreme Court, regardless of the case disposition status leaving that appearance. This included 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 two thirds of the cases. A fifth of the juveniles were held on bail and 14 percent of the juveniles were held with no bail set at this first stage of Supreme Court prosecution. 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 six of every ten cases with B-felony charges and in eight of every ten cases 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 (45%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (66%). Borough differences in the release rates at the first appearance in the upper court in the reporting period were very wide. The highest rate of ROR was in the Bronx (71%), followed by Brooklyn (63%), Queens (36%), and Manhattan (24%). However, the juveniles in Queens were far more likely to secure release on bail (39%) than were those in any other borough (12% in Brooklyn, 9% in Manhattan, and 2% in the Bronx). When the proportions released on bail and on recognizance at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, the overall rate of release is very similar in Brooklyn (76%), Queens (74%) and the Bronx (73%), and much lower in Manhattan (34%). 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 by release status. In 2007, citywide, it took a median of two weeks to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d). The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity (14 days for B-felony cases and 16 days for C- or D-felony cases). Cases in which the juvenile was released on recognizance (16 days) or bail (15 days) at the first appearance in the upper court tended to move more slowly between courts than did cases in which the juvenile was held on bail (5 days) or remanded with no bail set (10 days). Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. As in the previous reporting period, the shortest median time from lower to upper court was zero days in Queens. A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the JO cases that came to Supreme Court in Queens had arrived by SCI rather than by indictment. In SCI cases, defendants waive indictment at the last Criminal Court appearance and, typically, plead guilty in the upper court on the same day. The median number of days to the first appearance in Supreme Court was five days in the Bronx, nine days in Manhattan, and 25 days in Brooklyn. 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

-47-

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 tended to vary little by charge severity, some by release status, and most by the borough of prosecution.

-48-

-49-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 3%

Robbery 2 38%

Robbery 1 45%

Assault 1 5%

Other 7%

(N=320)

Murder 2 2%

-50-

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other 5%

11%

3% 5%

80%

27% 40%

38% 44%

40%

60%

40%

57%

48%

45% 40%

38%

20%

1% 2%

3% 2%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=84)

(N=121)

(N=55)

(N=60)

(N=320)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20)

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Non-JO Offenses:

TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

2.4%

2 0 0

2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

57.1%

53.7%

1 40 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1.2% 47.6% 4.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 49 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

4.1% 40.5% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 21 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

5.0%

1.6%

3 0 0

5.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 0 0

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

52.7%

68.3%

183

57.2%

5.5% 38.2% 1.8% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 34 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

3.3% 56.7% 3.3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0%

11 144 17 1 4 2 0 3 1 0

3.4% 45.0% 5.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0%

0 0 0

40.5%

46.3%

47.3%

26.7%

132

41.3%

34 0 0 0 0

40.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

48 2 0 0 6

39.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%

24 0 2 0 0

43.6% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0%

16 0 0 0 0

26.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

122 2 2 0 6

38.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 1.9%

100.0%

121

100.0%

320

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Dismissed Pled Not Guilty 100%

Transferred to Family Court Pled Guilty

Continued Bench Warrant Issued

2% 6%

2% 11%

80% 49% 52%

58%

60%

30%

70%

40% 46% 32% 47%

20%

33% 25% 15%

10%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=84)

(N=121)

(N=55)

(N=60)

Citywide (N=320)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

A FELONIES:

2.4%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Continued Pled Not Guilty Pled Guilty Bench Warrant Issued Subtotal

0 0 2 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

B FELONIES:

57.1%

53.7%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Continued Pled Not Guilty Pled Guilty Bench Warrant Issued Subtotal

0 0 19 24 3 2

0.0% 0.0% 39.6% 50.0% 6.3% 4.2% 100.0%

3 6 55 0 0 1

4.6% 9.2% 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 100.0%

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

5.0%

1.6%

0 0 1 2 0 0

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

0 0 3 2 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

52.7%

68.3%

183

57.2%

0 0 14 15 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 48.3% 51.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 6 13 21 1

0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 31.7% 51.2% 2.4% 100.0%

3 6 94 52 24 4

1.6% 3.3% 51.4% 28.4% 13.1% 2.2% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

C OR D FELONIES:

40.5%

46.3%

47.3%

26.7%

132

41.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Continued Pled Not Guilty Pled Guilty Bench Warrant Issued Subtotal

0 0 7 25 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 20.6% 73.5% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%

1 24 30 0 0 1

1.8% 42.9% 53.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 100.0%

0 2 12 12 0 0

0.0% 7.7% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 4 10 0

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

1 26 51 41 12 1

0.8% 19.7% 38.6% 31.1% 9.1% 0.8% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

121

100.0%

320

100.0%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Continued Pled Not Guilty Pled Guilty Bench Warrant Issued TOTAL

0 0 28 49 5 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 58.3% 6.0% 2.4% 100.0%

4 30 85 0 0 2

3.3% 24.8% 70.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 100.0%

0 2 26 27 0 0

0.0% 3.6% 47.3% 49.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 9 19 31 1

0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 31.7% 51.7% 1.7% 100.0%

4 32 148 95 36 5

1.3% 10.0% 46.3% 29.7% 11.3% 1.6% 100.0%

-54-

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100% 12%

12%

14%

27%

80%

12%

14%

40%

20% 2%

12%

60%

14% 39% 26%

40% 71% 63%

9% 52%

20%

36% 25%

0% Brooklyn (N=82)

Bronx (N=85)

Manhattan (N=53)

Queens (N=59)

Citywide (N=279)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2007 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 %

2.4%

0.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

56.1%

64.7%

54.7%

25 7 8 6

54.3% 15.2% 17.4% 13.0% 100.0%

35 1 19 0

63.6% 1.8% 34.5% 0.0% 100.0%

4 2 9 14

13.8% 6.9% 31.0% 48.3% 100.0%

41.5%

35.3%

45.3%

27 3 2 2

79.4% 8.8% 5.9% 5.9% 100.0%

25 1 4 0

83.3% 3.3% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

9 3 5 7

37.5% 12.5% 20.8% 29.2% 100.0%

100.0%

52 10 10 10

63.4% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 100.0%

60 2 23 0

70.6% 2.4% 27.1% 0.0% 100.0%

13 5 14 21

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

5.1%

1.8%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 5

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

67.8%

170

60.9%

13 16 7 4

32.5% 40.0% 17.5% 10.0% 100.0%

77 26 43 24

45.3% 15.3% 25.3% 14.1% 100.0%

27.1%

104

37.3%

8 7 1 0

50.0% 43.8% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0%

69 14 12 9

66.3% 13.5% 11.5% 8.7% 100.0%

100.0%

279

100.0%

24.5% 9.4% 26.4% 39.6% 100.0%

21 23 8 7

35.6% 39.0% 13.6% 11.9% 100.0%

146 40 55 38

52.3% 14.3% 19.7% 13.6% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

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

-56-

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: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR 25

Remand

Total

Bail Set and Not Made

Median Number of Appearances

Bail Set and Made

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=175)

(N=104)

(N=279)

-57-

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 2007 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

37.5

14.0

21.0

0 0 0 2

37.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

14.0

0 0 0 5

21.0

23.0

5.0

8.0

0.0

170

14.0

25 7 8 6

19.0 22.0 39.5 33.0

35 1 19 0

14.0 5.0 4.0 -

4 2 9 14

14.5 15.0 8.0 7.0

13 16 7 4

0.0 26.0 21.0 0.0

77 26 43 24

15.0 19.5 5.0 7.0

26.0

4.5

14.5

0.0

104

15.5

27 3 2 2

24.0 31.0 73.5 38.0

25 1 4 0

5.0 3.0 4.5 -

9 3 5 7

31.0 2.0 15.0 4.0

8 7 1 0

0.0 14.0 12.0 -

69 14 12 9

20.0 9.0 10.0 10.0

25.0

5.0

9.0

0.0

279

14.0

52 10 10 10

20.0 28.0 42.5 36.0

60 2 23 0

11.5 4.0 4.0 -

13 5 14 21

16.0 4.0 8.0 7.0

21 23 8 7

0.0 14.0 17.5 0.0

146 40 55 38

16.0 15.0 5.0 9.5

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 issued or stayed, or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed.

-58-

-59-

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 309 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2007. This total is not comparable to the numbers of cases disposed in previous reporting periods because of an important change in the unit of analysis. Prior to 2007, the disposition of each indictment had been tallied, regardless of the number of indictments that were associated with a single case. For the current reporting period, cases, not indictments, were tracked. The charge composition of JO cases at disposition in Supreme Court was 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 (44%). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly eight of every ten dispositions (79%) in 2007. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge was assault, which accounted for seven percent of Supreme Court dispositions in 2007. A-felony charges accounted for one percent of disposed cases (3 cases in 2007), B-felony charges accounted for 58 percent of disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges accounted for the remaining cases. Borough differences in the distribution of JO disposition charges were large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). The proportion of cases with first-degree robbery charges at disposition ranged from 37 percent in the Bronx, and 45 and 46 percent in Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively, to 56 percent in Queens. Borough differences in the proportion of cases disposed at the second-degree robbery level are smaller; the proportion charged with second-degree robbery at disposition ranged from 31 percent in Queens and 33 percent in Brooklyn to 38 percent in Manhattan and the Bronx. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first- or seconddegree robbery charges ranged from 74 percent in the Bronx to 79 percent in Brooklyn, 83 percent in Manhattan, and 86 percent in Queens. After the robbery charges, the second most common disposition charge was first-degree assault, which accounted for about seven percent of disposed cases citywide. Exhibit 5B shows that, once a JO case was filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate was very high in each borough except the Bronx: Overall, 76 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was highest in Queens (98%), followed by Manhattan (92%) and Brooklyn (86%), and lowest in the Bronx (51%). The relatively low rate of conviction in the Bronx reflects the consequences of reorganizing the criminal courts in that borough. Since all felony cases that are not disposed at the initial hearing in the Bronx lower court are sent to the upper court for adjudication, many cases that are heard in the Supreme Court in that borough previously would have reached disposition in the Criminal Court. If the charges are reduced in the Supreme Court but remain felony-level in an adult case, the conviction will be recorded in the Supreme Court. For JO cases, however, the juvenile may be prosecuted in the adult court only for specific serious felony offenses. If the charge is reduced to any other charge, there cannot be a conviction in the adult court, although the case may be adjudicated in the Family Court instead. Juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were less likely to show convictions (68%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (81%), but most of the difference seems to have been a consequence of the restructuring of the Bronx courts (Table 5b). The difference in the rate of conviction for B-felony cases compared to those with C- or D-felony charges was

-60-

wide in the Bronx (64%, compared to only 37%), narrower in Manhattan (94%, compared to 90%), and in the reverse direction in Brooklyn (83%, compared to 89% for the less severe charges) and Queens (only one B-felony case did not result in a conviction). Citywide, 232 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing in 2007. As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 62 percent of JO cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period. More than four of every ten juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and two of every ten were released on bail. As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for defendants in JO cases to be held on bail at 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 2007, the highest rate of release at disposition was in Queens (78%), followed by Manhattan (62%) and the rates of release were lower in the Bronx and Queens (56% and 55%, respectively). The picture was similar when only the ROR rates at disposition are considered, except that the ROR rate was not highest in Queens. More than half of the defendants in Manhattan in JO cases (57%) were released on recognizance at disposition in Manhattan, compared to 42 percent in the Bronx, 37 percent in Brooklyn, and only 35 percent in Queens. The rate of release on bail at disposition in Queens was much higher than in any other borough: Queens juveniles were released on bail in more than four of every ten JO cases adjourned for sentencing, compared to 19 percent in Brooklyn, 13 percent in the Bronx, and only five percent in Manhattan. Exhibit 5D.1 and 5D.2 present information regarding the Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts). Exhibit 5D.1 presents the proportion disposed in those parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information about any differences in type of disposition, separately for each felony severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, about two thirds of the cases reach disposition in a JO Part. 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 (97%), followed by Brooklyn (88%) and the Bronx (50%), and the lowest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Queens (33%), 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. The explanation for the low proportion of cases disposed in the JO Part in the Bronx again involves case processing in accordance with court restructuring. Since virtually all Bronx JO cases are transferred to the upper court, virtually all dispositions take place in the Supreme Court, including dispositions for cases that are not ultimately retained in adult court. However, only indicted cases (and SCIs) are assigned to the JO Part for processing. The borough differences in the proportions of juvenile cases disposed in JO Parts also reflects 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 tend to be higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts. During this reporting period, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts: Nearly nine of every ten cases disposed in a JO Part resulted in conviction, compared to only half of the cases

-61-

disposed in other parts. The low conviction rates for non-JO Parts primarily reflects the low conviction rate in non-JO Parts in the Bronx, since Bronx cases comprise more than half of those disposed in non-JO Parts. 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 the Bronx Supreme Court than in those in other boroughs. It seems likely that the convictions in the non-JO Part in Queens reflect the inclusion of SCI cases, cases that imply that the plea was already entered. In other boroughs, the volume of dispositions separated by JO versus non-JO Part was too low to permit conclusions as to whether the observed citywide difference in conviction rates might have been attributable to the type of court part, the use of SCIs, borough differences, or other factors. 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. The current discussion of length of case, citywide and by borough is based on the latter exhibits because, unlike Exhibits 5E and 5F, Exhibits 5G and 5H do not exclude cases without release statuses. Citywide, it took a median of seven appearance and 140 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were longer for JO cases with A- or B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 168 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (5 appearances and 96 days). The citywide data on the median number of appearances and the median number of days to disposition in Supreme Court again masked borough differences (Exhibit 5G and 5H). It took an average of only one appearance to reach disposition in Queens (where more than half of the cases were disposed at the first appearance in Supreme Court, Exhibit 4B), compared to five in the Bronx, seven in Brooklyn and ten appearances in Manhattan. 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. 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 four months in the Bronx, nearly six months in Brooklyn, and nearly eight months in 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 bail (7 appearances, 143 days) reached disposition nearly as fast as did cases with juveniles who were released on ROR (4 appearance, 126 days), much faster than did those with juveniles who were held on bail (11 appearances, 192 days). Cases with juveniles who were remanded with no bail set had an average of 9 appearances and 220 days. 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,

-62-

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-charge-severity category examined. In all boroughs except Brooklyn (where the median was the same for cases disposed in the JO Part as for cases disposed in other parts), 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. The cases in the JO Parts reached the upper court primarily through indictment, while the cases in the non-JO Parts included 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 the Bronx (12) and Manhattan (10) than in Brooklyn (7) or Queens (6.5). Cases took a median of eleven months to reach disposition in the JO Part in the Bronx, eight months in the JO Part in Manhattan, nearly six months in Brooklyn, and a median of three months for the 17 cases disposed in the JO Part in Queens during this reporting period.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Offenses 3%

Assault 1 7%

Other 6% Robbery 1 45%

Robbery 2 35% Murder 2 Att. Murder 2 1% 3%

(N=309)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Murder 2 Robbery 2 Non-JO Offenses 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

3% 7%

5% 5%

Robbery 1 Other

2% 9%

3% 6%

4% 6%

80% 31% 38%

33%

35%

38%

60%

40% 56% 46%

37%

45%

1% 1%

45%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=76)

Bronx (N=117)

Manhattan (N=64)

3% 1%

Queens (N=52)

Citywide (N=309)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20)

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Non-JO Offenses:

TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

1.3%

1 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

63.2%

1 35 7 2 0 2 0 1 0 0

1.3% 46.1% 9.2% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

7 43 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

3.1%

2 0 0

3.1% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

53.8%

51.6%

6.0% 36.8% 9.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 29 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0.0% 45.3% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0%

2 29 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 3

1.0%

3 0 0

1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

69.2%

180

58.3%

3.8% 55.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0%

10 136 23 2 1 3 0 4 1 0

3.2% 44.0% 7.4% 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0%

35.5%

46.2%

45.3%

30.8%

126

40.8%

25 0 0 0 2

32.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%

44 0 2 2 6

37.6% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 5.1%

24 0 4 0 1

37.5% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 1.6%

16 0 0 0 0

30.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

109 0 6 2 9

35.3% 0.0% 1.9% 0.6% 2.9%

100.0%

117

100.0%

309

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Convicted

100%

80% 51%

76%

60%

86% 92% 98%

40% 30%

20%

15% 19%

5% 3%

Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=76)

(N=117)

Manhattan (N=64)

Queens

Citywide

(N=52)

(N=309)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

A FELONIES:

1.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Manhattan N %

Queens %

3.1%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.0%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

63.2%

53.8%

51.6%

69.2%

180

58.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal

3 5 40

6.3% 10.4% 83.3% 100.0%

13 10 40

20.6% 15.9% 63.5% 100.0%

1 1 31

3.0% 3.0% 93.9% 100.0%

0 1 35

0.0% 2.8% 97.2% 100.0%

17 17 146

9.4% 9.4% 81.1% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

35.5%

46.2%

45.3%

30.8%

126

40.8%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal

1 2 24

3.7% 7.4% 88.9% 100.0%

9 25 20

16.7% 46.3% 37.0% 100.0%

1 2 26

3.4% 6.9% 89.7% 100.0%

0 0 16

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11 29 86

8.7% 23.0% 68.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

117

100.0%

309

100.0%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal

4 7 65

5.3% 9.2% 85.5% 100.0%

22 35 60

18.8% 29.9% 51.3% 100.0%

2 3 59

3.1% 4.7% 92.2% 100.0%

0 1 51

0.0% 1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

28 46 235

9.1% 14.9% 76.1% 100.0%

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

20% 33%

80%

34%

40%

41%

60%

4% 43% 19%

13%

19%

40%

57%

20%

43%

42%

37%

35%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=63)

(N=60)

(N=58)

(N=51)

(N=232)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES:* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

1.6%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

61.9%

11 6 2 20

28.2% 15.4% 5.1% 51.3% 100.0%

11 7 2 20

36.5%

12 6 0 5

52.2% 26.1% 0.0% 21.7% 100.0%

63 23 12 2 26

0.0%

Queens %

3.4%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

66.7%

51.7%

27.5% 17.5% 5.0% 50.0% 100.0%

15 3 2 10

50.0% 10.0% 6.7% 33.3% 100.0%

11 14 1 9

33.3%

44.8%

14 1 1 4

70.0% 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0%

18 0 1 7

69.2% 0.0% 3.8% 26.9% 100.0%

100.0%

36.5% 19.0% 3.2% 41.3% 100.0%

25 8 3 24

41.7% 13.3% 5.0% 40.0% 100.0%

33 3 3 19

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 3

1.3%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

68.6%

144

62.1%

31.4% 40.0% 2.9% 25.7% 100.0%

48 30 7 59

33.3% 20.8% 4.9% 41.0% 100.0%

31.4%

36.6%

7 8 0 1

43.8% 50.0% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%

51 15 2 17

60.0% 17.6% 2.4% 20.0% 100.0%

100.0%

232

100.0%

56.9% 5.2% 5.2% 32.8% 100.0%

18 22 1 10

35.3% 43.1% 2.0% 19.6% 100.0%

99 45 9 79

42.7% 19.4% 3.9% 34.1% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * 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 or acquitted.

-70-

Exhibit 5D.1 Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

100%

3% 12% 34%

80% 50% 67%

60% 97% 88%

40% 66% 50%

20%

33%

0% Brooklyn (N=76)

Bronx

(N=117)

Manhattan (N=64)

Queens (N=52)

Citywide (N=309)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

100%

Convicted

92%

88%

89%

80% 64%

60%

50%

50% 37%

40%

16%

20%

36%

20%

7% 5%

14%

13% 6%

6% 4%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=183)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=126)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Charges (N=309)

-72-

Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 1

1.3%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

3.1%

0 0 0

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

1.0%

0 0 0

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal

0 0 0

Non-JO Part: Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Convicted Subtotal B FELONIES:

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

63.2%

53.8%

51.6%

69.2%

180

58.3%

2 5 36 43

4.7% 11.6% 83.7% 100.0%

6 0 38 44

13.6% 0.0% 86.4% 100.0%

1 1 31 33

3.0% 3.0% 93.9% 100.0%

0 1 10 11

0.0% 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

9 7 115 131

6.9% 5.3% 87.8% 100.0%

1 0 4 5

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 100.0%

7 10 2 19

36.8% 52.6% 10.5% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 25 25

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8 10 31 49

16.3% 20.4% 63.3% 100.0%

35.5%

46.2%

45.3%

30.8%

126

40.8%

1 2 21 24

4.2% 8.3% 87.5% 100.0%

2 0 13 15

13.3% 0.0% 86.7% 100.0%

1 0 26 27

3.7% 0.0% 96.3% 100.0%

0 0 6 6

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4 2 66 72

5.6% 2.8% 91.7% 100.0%

0 0 3 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7 25 7 39

17.9% 64.1% 17.9% 100.0%

0 2 0 2

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 10 10

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7 27 20 54

13.0% 50.0% 37.0% 100.0%

100.0%

117

100.0%

309

100.0%

3 7 57 67

4.5% 10.4% 85.1% 100.0%

8 0 51 59

13.6% 0.0% 86.4% 100.0%

2 1 59 62

3.2% 1.6% 95.2% 100.0%

0 1 16 17

0.0% 5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

13 9 183 205

6.3% 4.4% 89.3% 100.0%

1 0 8 9

11.1% 0.0% 88.9% 100.0%

14 35 9 58

24.1% 60.3% 15.5% 100.0%

0 2 0 2

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 35 35

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

15 37 52 104

14.4% 35.6% 50.0% 100.0%

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

-73-

Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Appearances

16 12

12 8

8 5

0 A or B Felonies (N=177)

C or D Felonies (N=92)

All Charges (N=269)

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: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

350

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

280

250

150

Total

Median Number of Days

300

200

Remand

199 201 147

177

130

171 164

192

164 126

105

220

143

100 50 0 A or B Felonies (N=177)

C or D Felonies (N=92)

All Charges (N=269)

169

-74-

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 2007 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

16.0

17.0

16.0

0 0 1 1

16.0 16.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 4

16.0 16.5

8.0

11.0

10.5

1.0

172

8.0

20 10 12 7

8.0 7.5 7.5 7.0

26 3 26 1

7.0 15.0 14.0 21.0

7 5 7 11

10.0 8.0 12.0 12.0

12 18 3 4

1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

65 36 48 23

5.0 6.0 12.0 8.0

5.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

7.0

13 7 2 1

2.0 9.0 9.5 9.0

17 1 8 0

6.0 5.0 9.0 -

6 3 7 12

10.0 7.0 10.0 12.5

7 7 1 0

1.0 5.0 6.0 -

43 18 18 13

3.0 7.0 9.0 12.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

269

7.0

33 17 15 9

4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0

43 4 34 1

6.0 13.5 12.0 21.0

13 8 14 26

10.0 7.0 12.0 12.0

19 25 4 4

1.0 3.0 3.5 1.0

108 54 67 40

4.0 7.0 11.0 8.5

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 was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed or acquitted.

-75-

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 2007 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

338.0

409.0

355.0

0 0 1 1

321.0 355.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

409.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 4

321.0 382.0

177.0

267.0

208.5

0.0

172

169.5

20 10 12 7

204.5 248.0 168.0 131.0

26 3 26 1

186.5 518.0 317.0 341.0

7 5 7 11

203.0 108.0 182.0 301.0

12 18 3 4

0.0 29.0 61.0 0.0

65 36 48 23

147.0 130.5 195.5 175.0

126.0

189.0

244.0

0.0

163.5

13 7 2 1

41.0 217.0 164.0 178.0

17 1 8 0

189.0 167.0 231.0 -

6 3 7 12

255.5 175.0 236.0 311.5

7 7 1 0

0.0 48.0 89.0 -

43 18 18 13

105.0 171.0 164.0 280.0

167.0

238.5

236.0

0.0

269

169.0

33 17 15 9

101.0 217.0 168.0 140.0

43 4 34 1

189.0 445.0 308.5 341.0

13 8 14 26

252.0 141.5 183.5 304.0

19 25 4 4

0.0 29.0 72.5 0.0

108 54 67 40

126.5 143.0 192.0 219.5

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 was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed or acquitted.

-76-

Exhibit 5G Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part 25

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Appearances

20 15 10

0 A or B Felonies (N=183)

C or D Felonies (N=126)

All Charges (N=309)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part 250 200

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Days

220

199

215

150 100 50 0

0 A or B Felonies (N=183)

C or D Felonies (N=126)

All Charges (N=309)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

16.0

11.5

16.0

0 1

16.0

0 0

2 0

11.5 -

0 0

2 1

11.5 16.0

7.0

10.0

1.0

180

7.0

43 5

7.0 7.0

44 19

12.5 2.0

33 0

10.0 -

11 25

3.0 1.0

131 49

8.0 1.0

6.0

2.0

10.0

1.0

126

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

24 3

6.0 2.0

15 39

11.0 1.0

27 2

12.0 1.0

6 10

6.5 1.0

72 54

8.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

117

5.0

10.0

1.0

309

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

67 9

7.0 7.0

59 58

12.0 1.0

62 2

10.0 1.0

17 35

5.0 1.0

205 104

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.

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

355.0

305.0

355.0

0 1

355.0

0 0

2 0

305.0 -

0 0

2 1

305.0 355.0

172.5

238.0

185.0

0.0

180

165.5

43 5

168.0 183.0

44 19

327.5 8.0

33 0

185.0 -

11 25

61.0 0.0

131 49

194.0 0.0

126.0

5.0

259.0

0.0

126

95.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

24 3

137.0 41.0

15 39

330.0 0.0

27 2

280.0 0.0

6 10

102.5 0.0

72 54

220.5 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

168.0

117

128.0

233.5

0.0

309

140.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

67 9

166.0 183.0

59 58

330.0 0.0

62 2

242.5 0.0

17 35

89.0 0.0

205 104

215.0 0.0

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

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

-78-

-79-

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 265 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2007 were for juvenile offenders, more than in 2006 (233), 2005 (203), or 2004 (227). Overall, half of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 2007 were custodial, as in previous reporting periods. This included either imprisonment only (43%) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (7%). The boroughs differed widely in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences. The borough with the highest proportion of sentences that included any prison time was the Bronx (71%), followed by Brooklyn (66%), Queens (37%), and Manhattan (35%). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (59%) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (32%). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2007 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 (47%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (28%). 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 was smaller (52% in JO Parts, compared to 43% in nonJO 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, especially since there were only 58 sentences given in non-JO Parts in 2007. 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, 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 (78%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2007. 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 YO15 status in 85 percent of the sentences during the reporting period16. 15

If a juvenile offender is found to be a ‘youthful offender,’ 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.

-80-

Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (83%, compared to 95%). 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 (98%), as did 86 percent of those in Manhattan and 84 percent in the Bronx, but only 72 percent in Brooklyn. Again, however, borough comparisons by type of court part are limited because of low volume. The small volume of cases that reached sentencing in each borough and type of court part limit the generalizability of these findings. The length of incarcerative sentences is presented in this report for the first time (Exhibit 6D and Table 6d). Citywide, nearly three of every ten juveniles sentenced to imprisonment were sentenced to one year or less, and a third of the sentences were for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years. A quarter of the sentences were for a minimum of one and a third years or one and one half years, and the remaining thirteen percent were sentenced to a minimum of two years or more. Incarcerative sentences for cases with B-felony conviction charges were longer than those for cases with less severe charges at conviction: Less than a quarter of incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to more than half of those at the C- or D-felony level. As shown in Exhibit 6D, borough differences in length of sentence were very wide. None of the Manhattan sentences were for one year or less, compared to a quarter of the sentences in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and nearly all of the sentences in Queens (82%). Juveniles convicted in Manhattan were least likely to receive incarcerative sentences, but, if sentenced to imprisonment, the sentences were longer than in other boroughs. More than three quarters of the Manhattan sentences were for a minimum of over one year and more than a quarter were for a minimum of two years. Less than a third of the Bronx and Brooklyn sentences were for a minimum of over one year and only one Queens sentence exceeded a minimum of one year. Exhibits 6E and 6F, and Tables 6e and 6f, give the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 2007 for each of the conviction-charge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2007 appeared a median of thirteen times in Supreme Court, and a median of nearly a year elapsed between the first appearance and sentencing. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (4 appearances, 78 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of nine appearances in Brooklyn (245 days), 17 appearances in the Bronx (442 days) and 21 appearances (573 days) in Manhattan. The average length of case from the first appearance in the upper court to sentence was longer for juveniles with more severe conviction charges. JO cases with B-felony charges at conviction took a median of thirteen appearances and more than a year to reach sentencing in Supreme Court. JO cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction took one fewer appearance and 80 fewer days. The data show longer time to sentencing for JO cases with more severe charges in each borough. 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 16

Table 6C does not display the percentages granted YO status by borough for JO and non-JO Parts combined.

-81-

conviction-charge severity for several reasons. It is important to note that 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. Also, as we have already discussed, borough differences are very strong and the small numbers of cases in many categories limit analysis within borough.

-82-

-83-

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

21% 25%

31%

80%

41% 7%

60%

44%

40% 64%

59%

18% 43%

20%

35% 18%

0% Brooklyn (N=61)

Bronx (N=55)

Manhattan (N=89)

Queens (N=60)

Citywide (N=265)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

3.3%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

67.2%

29 3 8 1

70.7% 7.3% 19.5% 2.4% 100.0%

0.0%

Queens %

2.2%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

74.5%

49.4%

29 2 9 1

70.7% 4.9% 22.0% 2.4% 100.0%

21 0 14 9

47.7% 0.0% 31.8% 20.5% 100.0%

29.5%

25.5%

5 1 11 1

27.8% 5.6% 61.1% 5.6% 94.4%

6 2 5 1

42.9% 14.3% 35.7% 7.1% 92.9%

100.0%

36 4 19 2

59.0% 6.6% 31.1% 3.3% 100.0%

35 4 14 2

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

1.5%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

65.0%

165

62.3%

9 4 25 1

23.1% 10.3% 64.1% 2.6% 100.0%

88 9 56 12

53.3% 5.5% 33.9% 7.3% 100.0%

48.3%

35.0%

36.2%

8 0 25 10

18.6% 0.0% 58.1% 23.3% 76.7%

2 7 11 1

9.5% 33.3% 52.4% 4.8% 95.2%

21 10 52 13

21.9% 10.4% 54.2% 13.5% 86.5%

100.0%

265

100.0%

63.6% 7.3% 25.5% 3.6% 100.0%

31 0 39 19

34.8% 0.0% 43.8% 21.3% 100.0%

11 11 36 2

18.3% 18.3% 60.0% 3.3% 100.0%

113 19 108 25

42.6% 7.2% 40.8% 9.4% 100.0%

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

Percent

80%

60%

40%

20% 4

11 3

16 10

10 5

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=169)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=96)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=265)

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment

100%

Other

4 20

32 12

60%

Probation

Percent

80%

Imp. and Probation

8 56

44 60

40% 58

18 47

20%

20 7

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=53) (N=8)

(N=50) (N=5)

Manhattan

Queens

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=89)

(N=0)

(N=15) (N=45)

Citywide JO NonPart JO Part (N=207) (N=58)

-87-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3.3%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

0.0%

Queens %

2.2%

0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

67.2%

74.5%

49.4%

25 3 8 1 37

67.6% 8.1% 21.6% 2.7% 100.0%

28 2 8 1 39

71.8% 5.1% 20.5% 2.6% 100.0%

21 0 14 9 44

47.7% 0.0% 31.8% 20.5% 100.0%

4 0 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

29.5%

25.5%

5 0 9 1 15

33.3% 0.0% 60.0% 6.7% 100.0%

6 2 3 0 11

54.5% 18.2% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 25 10 43

0 1 2 0 3

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

100.0%

31 3 17 2 53

58.5% 5.7% 32.1% 3.8% 100.0%

34 4 11 1 50

68.0% 8.0% 22.0% 2.0% 100.0%

31 0 39 19 89

5 1 2 0 8

62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 1 5

20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.5%

0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

65.0%

165

62.3%

1 0 8 0 9

11.1% 0.0% 88.9% 0.0% 100.0%

75 5 38 11 129

58.1% 3.9% 29.5% 8.5% 100.0%

8 4 17 1 30

26.7% 13.3% 56.7% 3.3% 100.0%

13 4 18 1 36

36.1% 11.1% 50.0% 2.8% 100.0%

48.3%

35.0%

36.2%

18.6% 0.0% 58.1% 23.3% 100.0%

0 3 3 0 6

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 5 40 11 75

25.3% 6.7% 53.3% 14.7% 100.0%

2 4 8 1 15

13.3% 26.7% 53.3% 6.7% 100.0%

2 5 12 2 21

9.5% 23.8% 57.1% 9.5% 100.0%

100.0%

265

100.0%

34.8% 0.0% 43.8% 21.3% 100.0%

1 3 11 0 15

6.7% 20.0% 73.3% 0.0% 100.0%

97 10 78 22 207

46.9% 4.8% 37.7% 10.6% 100.0%

10 8 25 2 45

22.2% 17.8% 55.6% 4.4% 100.0%

16 9 30 3 58

27.6% 15.5% 51.7% 5.2% 100.0%

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

-88-

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

Youthful Offender

Not Youthful Offender

100% 80%

92%

76%

93%

100%

83%

95%

60% 40% 24% 17%

20%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=169)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=96)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=265)

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Youthful Offender 100%

Not Youthful Offender

Percent 14

7 17

80%

60% 100

40%

100

95 83

20%

Brooklyn JO Part NonJO Part (N=53) (N=8)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=50) (N=5)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=89) (N=0)

Queens JO Part NonJO Part (N=15) (N=45)

Citywide JO Part NonJO Part (N=207) (N=58)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3.3%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0%

Queens %

2.2%

0 0

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

67.2%

74.5%

49.4%

25 12 37

67.6% 32.4% 100.0%

31 8 39

79.5% 20.5% 100.0%

36 8 44

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

2 2 4

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

29.5%

25.5%

13 2 15

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

10 1 11

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

41 2 43

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

100.0%

39 14 53

73.6% 26.4% 100.0%

41 9 50

82.0% 18.0% 100.0%

77 12 89

5 3 8

62.5% 37.5% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.5%

0 0

1 2 3

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

65.0%

165

62.3%

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

100 29 129

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

30 0 30

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 2 36

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

48.3%

35.0%

36.2%

95.3% 4.7% 100.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

70 5 75

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

15 0 15

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 0 21

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

265

100.0%

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

14 1 15

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

171 36 207

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

45 0 45

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

55 3 58

94.8% 5.2% 100.0%

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

-91-

Exhibit 6D Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Borough: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Less than one year 1 year 1 to 3 years 1 â&#x2026;&#x201C; to 4 and 1 Â˝ to 5 years 2 to 6 years or more 100% 10%

13%

17% 23%

15%

80%

13% 12% 59%

60% 42%

33% 44%

52%

40% 23%

25%

18%

20%

23% 26%

14%

15%

13% 8%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=40)

(N=39)

(N=31)

(N=22)

(N=132)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Sentences

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

A FELONIES:

5.0%

1 ⅓ to 4 and 1 ½ to 5 years 2 to 6 years or more Subtotal

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

80.0%

Less than 1 year 1 year 1 to 3 years 1 ⅓ to 4 and 1 ½ to 5 years 2 to 6 years or more Subtotal

3 4 14 6 5 32

9.4% 12.5% 43.8% 18.8% 15.6% 100.0%

3 3 14 8 3 31

0.0%

Queens %

6.5%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

79.5%

67.7%

9.7% 9.7% 45.2% 25.8% 9.7% 100.0%

0 0 6 10 5 21

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 47.6% 23.8% 100.0%

4 5 3 1 0 13

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

3.0%

1 3 4

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

59.1%

73.5%

30.8% 38.5% 23.1% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%

10 12 37 25 13 97

10.3% 12.4% 38.1% 25.8% 13.4% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

15.0%

20.5%

25.8%

40.9%

23.5%

Less than 1 year 1 year 1 to 3 years 1 ⅓ to 4 and 1 ½ to 5 years 2 to 6 years or more Subtotal

1 2 3 0 0 6

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

2 2 3 1 0 8

25.0% 25.0% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 6 1 8

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0%

9 0 0 0 0 9

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

12 4 7 7 1 31

38.7% 12.9% 22.6% 22.6% 3.2% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

132

100.0%

Less than 1 year 1 year 1 to 3 years 1 ⅓ to 4 and 1 ½ to 5 years 2 to 6 years or more TOTAL

4 6 17 7 6 40

10.0% 15.0% 42.5% 17.5% 15.0% 100.0%

5 5 17 9 3 39

12.8% 12.8% 43.6% 23.1% 7.7% 100.0%

0 0 7 16 8 31

0.0% 0.0% 22.6% 51.6% 25.8% 100.0%

13 5 3 1 0 22

59.1% 22.7% 13.6% 4.5% 0.0% 100.0%

22 16 44 33 17 132

16.7% 12.1% 33.3% 25.0% 12.9% 100.0%

-93-

Exhibit 6E Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Appearances

18 15

14 12

0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

(N=167)

All Charges

(N=95)

(N=262)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Release at Disposition Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

500 400

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Median Number of Days 452 448 387 319

320

300

394

364 350 296

Remand

296 245

364

Total

330

271

200 100 0 A or B Felonies (N=167)

C or D Felonies (N=95)

All Charges (N=262)

357

-94-

Table 6e Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

25.5

12.5

18.5

0 0 0 2

25.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

12.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4

18.5

9.0

17.0

26.0

4.0

163

13.0

10 9 1 20

13.5 9.0 5.0 9.0

8 9 3 21

18.5 17.0 12.0 17.0

25 3 3 12

22.0 15.0 27.0 32.5

16 13 1 9

5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0

59 34 8 62

15.0 9.0 18.5 13.5

8.0

10.5

19.0

3.0

12.0

8 6 0 3

4.5 10.0 11.0

9 0 0 5

9.0 14.0

25 7 1 10

19.0 18.0 12.0 19.0

9 9 0 3

2.0 3.0 8.0

51 22 1 21

12.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

9.0

17.0

21.0

4.0

262

13.0

18 15 1 25

10.0 9.0 5.0 9.0

17 9 3 26

12.0 17.0 12.0 17.0

50 10 4 24

21.0 17.5 27.0 21.0

25 22 1 12

3.0 4.0 3.0 5.5

110 56 9 87

13.5 9.5 12.0 14.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes three cases with no release status at disposition because the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-95-

Table 6f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2007 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

742.5

328.5

426.0

0 0 0 2

742.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

328.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4

426.0

271.0

465.0

627.0

90.0

163

376.0

10 9 1 20

383.0 276.0 72.0 210.0

8 9 3 21

507.0 674.0 272.0 443.0

25 3 3 12

511.0 482.0 672.0 899.5

16 13 1 9

162.0 71.0 47.0 95.0

59 34 8 62

452.0 319.0 447.5 301.0

178.0

283.5

572.0

64.0

296.0

8 6 0 3

129.0 245.0 178.0

9 0 0 5

218.0 350.0

25 7 1 10

592.0 579.0 364.0 566.0

9 9 0 3

50.0 64.0 98.0

51 22 1 21

296.0 245.0 364.0 350.0

245.0

442.0

573.0

78.5

262

357.0

18 15 1 25

227.0 266.0 72.0 210.0

17 9 3 26

434.0 674.0 272.0 432.5

50 10 4 24

558.0 508.5 647.5 573.0

25 22 1 12

79.0 71.0 47.0 96.5

110 56 9 87

394.0 271.0 364.0 330.0

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear rates for 2007 are not comparable to those in previous reports. The rates presented here are based on all of the juveniles released on bail or on recognizance who were scheduled to appear at least once in the Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court (Exhibit 7) prior to disposition during the reporting period. Previously, the rates had been based on releases at arraignment in the Criminal Court or at the first appearance in the Supreme Court. Since all JO cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx are transferred to the Bronx Supreme Court, there were no appearances scheduled in the Criminal Court for Bronx juveniles during the reporting period. Pretrial appearances were scheduled in Criminal Court for a total of 339 released juveniles during the reporting period. This includes 274 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 65 who were release on bail. Eight released juveniles (2.4%) failed to appear as scheduled in 2007.17 As shown in Exhibit 7, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was slightly higher for juveniles released on recognizance (2.6%) than for those released on bail (1.5%). Table 7 presents pretrial failure-to-appear by release status by borough for juveniles scheduled to appear at least once in Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court during the reporting period. Three of the seven juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in Brooklyn, three had been released in Manhattan, and one had been released in Queens. The juvenile who posted bail and missed a scheduled appearance in 2007 faced prosecution in Queens. The FTA rate varied little across the boroughs, ranging from 2.1 percent in Brooklyn to 2.3 percent in Queens and 2.7 percent in Manhattan. Pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court in 2007 for a total of 313 released juveniles. This includes 228 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 85 who were released on bail. Five percent of the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear at least once in Supreme Court in 2007 failed to appear. As shown in Exhibit 7, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in the upper court was higher for juveniles released on recognizance (6.1%) than for those released on bail (3.5%). Although more released juveniles missed at least one scheduled appearance in the Supreme Court in the Bronx (7) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in the Bronx (156), and the failure-to-appear rate in the Bronx (4.5%) was lower than in any other borough. The failure rate was 4.8 percent for the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court, 5.5 percent for the released juveniles scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court, and 12.5 percent for the small number of released juveniles scheduled to appear at least once prior to disposition in the upper court in Queens. Only 24 released juveniles were scheduled to appear at least once prior to disposition in Queens Supreme Court, and most of these juveniles were released on bail, rather than ROR. 17

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

-98-

-99-

Exhibit 7 Failure to Appear Rates by Release Status 2007 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court

ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

10%

6% 5%

4% 3% 2%

0% Criminal Court (N=274)

(N=65)

(N=339)

Supreme Court (N=228)

(N=85)

(N=313)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2007 in Criminal and/or Supreme Court

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx* Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

Criminal Court: ROR Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear BAIL SET AND MADE Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear ALL RELEASES Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear

127

91.4%

3 124

2.2% 89.2% 91.4%

0 0

8.6%

0 12

0.0% 8.6% 8.6%

0 0

139

100.0%

3 136

2.2% 97.8% 100.0%

0 0

62.6%

134

4 53

4.4% 58.2% 62.6%

102

90.3%

51.7%

274

80.8%

3 99

2.7% 87.6% 90.3%

1 44

1.1% 50.6% 51.7%

7 267

2.1% 78.8% 80.8%

9.7%

48.3%

19.2%

0 11

0.0% 9.7% 9.7%

1 41

1.1% 47.1% 48.3%

1 64

0.3% 18.9% 19.2%

113

100.0%

339

100.0%

3 110

2.7% 97.3% 100.0%

2 85

2.3% 97.7% 100.0%

8 331

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

85.9%

78.6%

16.7%

228

72.8%

7 127

4.5% 81.4% 85.9%

2 31

4.8% 73.8% 78.6%

1 3

4.2% 12.5% 16.7%

14 214

6.1% 93.9% 100.0%

37.4%

14.1%

21.4%

83.3%

27.2%

1 33

1.1% 36.3% 37.4%

0 22

0.0% 14.1% 14.1%

0 9

0.0% 21.4% 21.4%

2 18

8.3% 75.0% 83.3%

3 82

3.5% 96.5% 100.0%

100.0%

156

100.0%

313

100.0%

5 86

5.5% 94.5% 100.0%

7 149

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

2 40

4.8% 95.2% 100.0%

3 21

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

17 296

5.4% 94.6% 100.0%

Supreme Court: ROR Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear BAIL SET AND MADE Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear ALL RELEASES Failed to Appear Appeared as Scheduled All Scheduled to Appear

* No released Juveniles were scheduled to appear in Bronx Criminal Court.

-101-

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.