Juveniles Report 08 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 2008

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2009

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 2008

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

David James Hauser Senior Research Assistant

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2009

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2009 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2009. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2008. 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 2008 (the second half of fiscal year 2008 and the first half of fiscal year 2009). 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 2008 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 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 were made in the methodology used to prepare the data for this report series. The current report is the second in the series to reflect the improved methodology.

-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 56 cases for defendants who were 16 years old or older at arrest and who were processed as juvenile offenders. 2. Every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible age-at-offense is now tallied. Prior to the change in methodology, 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 81 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 for meaningful comparisons 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 328, only 90 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 2,223 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. Three of every ten of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,549 cases (70%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, more than 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 (75%). 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

Arrests

2,223

Retained

1,549 (70%) 674 (30%)

Release Decision Released

Detained

Not Applicable

345 (52%)

315 (48%)

CC Arraignments

6606

CC Dispositions

642

SC 1st Appearances

429

25 (6%)

404 (94%)

246 (62%)

SC Dispositions

315

79 (25%) 236 (75%)

143 (61%)

0 (0%) 660 (100%)

236 (37%) 406 (63%) data not available data not available 7

153 (38%)

92 (39%)

The volume of arraignments is 660 and not 674 because the 14 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 399 cases, not 404, because the release status data is not relevant for the cases in which a bench warrant was ordered or stayed (5) at the first appearance.

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 235, not 236, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence. In one case the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 2,223 arrests for JO offenses in 2008. This is higher than the 1,995 arrests reported for 2007. It is also higher than the 1,887 arrests reported for 2006, but, as explained earlier, the arrest-level data for 2007 and 2008 are not comparable to the data reported for previous years because of changes in the way JO arrests are tallied. Specifically, since 2007, juvenile offenders were selected for inclusion in the 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 56 cases for juveniles who were 16-years-old or more at arrest in 2008 (32 in 2007) which were processed as juvenile offender cases. 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. Prior to the 2007 report, 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 is not affected since no docketed arrests were excluded in the previous tallies. Nevertheless, the current volume of JO arrests remains lower than the peak volume of roughly 2,400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1 and Table 1a, second-degree robbery was the most serious charge for two thirds of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for eight of every ten juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2008, nine of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson). After firstand second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge in 2008 was possession of a weapon in the second degree, which accounted for six percent of the arrests. This was followed by burglary in the second degree and assault in the first degree, which each accounted for nearly four percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. It is also important here to note that, as of November 1998, juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (265.03, subsection 4) or third degree (265.02), if it occurred on school grounds, and juveniles can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, each of the 130 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 44 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 somewhat across the boroughs in 2008. 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 60 percent in the Bronx to 68 and 70 percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively, to 75 percent in Queens. Arrests for either of the weapon charges ranged from three percent in Queens to nearly 12 percent in Manhattan (Table 1a). The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained extremely small in each borough. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the volume is higher but remains small. Taken together, murder and attempted murder charges accounted for less than two percent of the JO arrests in 2008.

-8-

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 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 Queens (62%) were slightly more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense than were those in Manhattan, Brooklyn or the Bronx (61%, 60% and 58%, respectively). There were 56 JO cases included in the 2008 report in which the juvenile was over 16 at arrest and therefore would not have been selected for prior reporting periods. There was one JO arrest involving a thirteenyear-old 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 except Staten Island, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds accounted for more JO arrests than did younger arrestees. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (85%, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Queens (22%), followed by Manhattan (15%) arrestees were more likely to be female than were those in Brooklyn (13%) or the Bronx (12%). Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, only eight percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges in 2008 were female, compared to 16 percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. However, the boroughs vary widely: In Queens, nearly a quarter of juveniles charged with C- or D- felonies were female compared to 12 percent of those charged with B felonies. The difference is nearly as wide in Brooklyn and the Bronx where six percent of B-felony juvenile arrests but 14 percent of those for C or D felonies were female. Overall, JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D and Table 1d indicate, 70 percent of the 2008 JO arrests were not docketed, slightly lower than the 72 percent which were not docketed in 2007.9 The lower proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2007 and 2008 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 and 2008, every arrest number associated with a JO-eligible charge and JOeligible age-at-offense was tallied as a distinct arrest. 9

The arrests that are not docketed include those voided by the police or declined prosecution (DP), as well as prosecutorial transfers to Family Court.

-9-

Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 2008 JO Arrests

Other 14%

Murder 2 & Att. Murder 2 2%

Assault 1 4%

Robbery 2 67% (N=2223)

Robbery 1 13%

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2008 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 13%

16%

12%

15%

80%

14% 4%

33%

60% 70% 60%

68%

67%

75%

40%

53%

20% 14%

14% 1%

13% 2%

12%

9% 1%

13% 2%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=808)

(N=526)

(N=382)

(N=426)

(N=81)

(N=2223)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2008 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 %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0.1%

0.8%

0.3%

0.7%

1 0 0

0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

4 0 0

0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.4%

9 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

152

18.8%

138

26.2%

19.1%

16.2%

13.6%

443

19.9%

7 112 21 0 2 9 0 0 1 0

0.9% 13.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

11 76 38 0 3 6 0 4 0 0

2.1% 14.4% 7.2% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

7 48 9 0 6 2 0 1 0 0

1.8% 12.6% 2.4% 0.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

2 38 14 1 3 9 0 2 0 0

0.5% 8.9% 3.3% 0.2% 0.7% 2.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 12.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 284 83 1 14 26 0 7 1 0

1.2% 12.8% 3.7% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

655

81.1%

384

73.0%

308

80.6%

354

83.1%

86.4% 1771

79.7%

563 23 53 16

69.7% 2.8% 6.6% 2.0%

313 29 27 15

59.5% 5.5% 5.1% 2.9%

258 5 37 8

67.5% 1.3% 9.7% 2.1%

320 20 10 4

75.1% 4.7% 2.3% 0.9%

43 23 3 1

53.1% 1497 28.4% 100 3.7% 130 1.2% 44

67.3% 4.5% 5.8% 2.0%

808

100.0%

526

100.0%

382

100.0%

426

100.0%

100.0% 2223

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: 2008 JO Arrests 14

100% 80%

46%

60%

58%

61%

63%

40%

42%

39%

37%

60%

60% 40% 20%

54%

40%

0% Brooklyn (N=808)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=526)

(N=382)

(N=426)

Staten Is. (N=81)

Citywide (N=2223)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2008 JO Arrests

100%

Males

Females

13%

12%

15%

87%

88%

85%

22%

16%

15%

84%

85%

80% 60% 40%

78%

20% 0% Brooklyn (N=808)

Bronx (N=526)

Manhattan (N=382)

Queens (N=426)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=81)

(N=2223)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Arrests

AGE A FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal B FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal ALL CHARGES 13 14 15 TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.1%

0.8%

0.3%

0.7%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 1 1

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

152

18.8%

138

26.2%

19.1%

16.2%

0 46 106

0.0% 30.3% 69.7% 100.0%

0 51 87

0.0% 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

0 36 37

0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 100.0%

0 21 48

0.0% 30.4% 69.6% 100.0%

0 5 6

655

81.1%

384

73.0%

308

80.6%

354

83.1%

0 273 382

0.0% 41.7% 58.3% 100.0%

0 170 214

0.0% 44.3% 55.7% 100.0%

0 112 196

0.0% 36.4% 63.6% 100.0%

0 137 217

0.0% 38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

808

100.0%

526

100.0%

382

100.0%

426

0 319 489

0.0% 39.5% 60.5% 100.0%

0 221 305

0.0% 42.0% 58.0% 100.0%

0 148 234

0.0% 38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

1 159 266

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 9

0.4%

1 1 7

11.1% 11.1% 77.8% 100.0%

13.6%

443

19.9%

0.0% 45.5% 54.5% 100.0%

0 159 284

0.0% 35.9% 64.1% 100.0%

86.4%

1771

79.7%

0 39 31

0.0% 55.7% 44.3% 100.0%

0 731 1040

0.0% 41.3% 58.7% 100.0%

100.0%

2223

100.0%

0.2% 37.3% 62.4% 100.0%

0 44 37

0.0% 54.3% 45.7% 100.0%

1 891 1331

0.0% 40.1% 59.9% 100.0%

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Arrests

GENDER A FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal B FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal ALL CHARGES Males Females TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.1%

0.8%

0.3%

0.7%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

152

18.8%

138

26.2%

19.1%

16.2%

143 9

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

130 8

94.2% 5.8% 100.0%

65 8

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

61 8

88.4% 11.6% 100.0%

9 2

655

81.1%

384

73.0%

308

80.6%

354

83.1%

561 94

85.6% 14.4% 100.0%

331 53

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

260 48

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

270 84

808

100.0%

526

100.0%

382

100.0%

704 104

87.1% 12.9% 100.0%

463 63

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

326 56

85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 9

0.4%

6 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

13.6%

443

19.9%

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

408 35

92.1% 7.9% 100.0%

86.4% 1771

79.7%

76.3% 23.7% 100.0%

59 11

84.3% 1481 15.7% 290 100.0%

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

426

100.0%

100.0% 2223

100.0%

334 92

78.4% 21.6% 100.0%

68 13

84.0% 1895 16.0% 328 100.0%

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2008 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 17% 22% 32%

34%

30%

33%

80%

60%

40%

83%

78% 68%

66%

70%

67%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=808)

(N=526)

Manhattan

Queens

(N=382)

(N=426)

Staten Is. (N=81)

Citywide (N=2223)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Arrests

DOCKET STATUS A FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal B FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.1%

0.8%

0.3%

0.7%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

152

18.8%

138

26.2%

19.1%

16.2%

39 113

25.7% 74.3% 100.0%

34 104

24.6% 75.4% 100.0%

21 52

28.8% 71.2% 100.0%

13 56

18.8% 81.2% 100.0%

6 5

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 9

0.4%

2 7

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

13.6%

443

19.9%

54.5% 45.5% 100.0%

113 330

25.5% 74.5% 100.0%

655

81.1%

384

73.0%

308

80.6%

354

83.1%

86.4% 1771

79.7%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

512 143

78.2% 21.8% 100.0%

310 74

80.7% 19.3% 100.0%

234 74

76.0% 24.0% 100.0%

317 37

89.5% 10.5% 100.0%

61 9

87.1% 1434 12.9% 337 100.0%

81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

808

100.0%

526

100.0%

382

100.0%

426

100.0%

100.0% 2223

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

551 257

68.2% 31.8% 100.0%

346 180

65.8% 34.2% 100.0%

255 127

66.8% 33.2% 100.0%

330 96

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

67 14

82.7% 1549 17.3% 674 100.0%

69.7% 30.3% 100.0%

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 66010 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, much more than in 2007 (541) but comparable to the volume in 2006 (635) and 2005 (661). The volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants was substantially higher prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The 22 percent citywide increase in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The increase was most marked in the Bronx, where 178 juveniles were arraigned compared to only 123 in 2007, and in Brooklyn, where the 256 juveniles were arraigned compared to 200 in 2007. The volume changed little in Manhattan and only nine percent in Queens. Brooklyn JO arraignments accounted for 38 percent of JO arraignments citywide. The Bronx accounted for more than a quarter of the citywide volume while Manhattan accounted for barely a fifth and Queens accounted for barely 15 percent of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that 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 (37%, compared to barely 13% at arrest) and second-degree robbery charges were more common among the arrest charges (67%, compared to 44% at arraignment). However, the proportion of first-degree robbery charges at arraignment decreased from 49 percent in 2006 to 44 percent in 2007 and to 37 percent in 2008 while the proportion of second-degree robbery charges increased comparably (from 36% in 2006 to 41% in 2007 and to 44% in 2008). The differences between the distribution of charges at arrest and at arraignment primarily reflect the lower rates of non-prosecution for juveniles with lesser-severity 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, a quarter 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 2008, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 28 percent in Manhattan and 35 percent in Brooklyn to 42 percent and 43 percent in Queens and the Bronx, respectively. In most reporting years, when first- and second-degree robbery are considered together, the borough differences are narrower because the boroughs with the higher proportions of juveniles arraigned on first-degree robbery show the lower proportions of juveniles arraigned on second-degree robbery charges. In 2008, however, first and second degree robbery accounted for 75 to 79 percent of arraigned JO cases in Queens, the Bronx and Manhattan, but 86 percent 10

The volume of cases arraigned here varies slightly from the volume of docketed arrests reported in the previous section because arrests known to be docketed may not have been arraigned in the reporting period.

-18-

of the juveniles in Brooklyn JO arraignments faced one of these robbery charges. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for the boroughs.11 There were no dismissals or transfers to Family Court at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 49 percent of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2008, lower than the 53 percent ROR rate in 2007 but higher than the 42 percent ROR rate in 2006. The citywide decrease in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR decrease was greatest in Manhattan (down to 40% from 50%), followed by the Bronx (down to 61% from 72%). There was little change in Queens (down to 31% from 33%) or Brooklyn (down to 52% from 53%). Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only 21 juveniles (3%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2008, with little difference by borough. The juveniles in JO arraignments in Queens were again most likely to be detained (67%), on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. More than half of the juveniles were detained in JO arraignments in Manhattan (54%), compared to 44 percent in Brooklyn and only 36 percent 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 2008, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 41 percent (about the same as the 43% released on ROR in 2007), compared to 59 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (lower than the 67% in 2007). Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment were large and are apparent even within charge-severity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2008, the proportion released on ROR was highest in the Bronx (53%), followed by Brooklyn (41%), and Manhattan (31%) and lowest in Queens (27%). The borough differences were even wider at the C- and D-felony level, ranging from an ROR rate of only 41 percent in Queens to 77 percent in the Bronx. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: 60 percent of females were released on ROR compared to 47 percent of males, an eleven percentage point decrease for females and a four percentage point decrease for males from 2007 to 2008. 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 for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment 11

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

-19-

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 2008, nearly eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, more than in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007, 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 85 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, comparable to the 87 percent recommended in 2007. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the defendant from eligibility for any 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 2008, the murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs and two 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 2008 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, about the same as in 2007. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2008 were slightly less likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (53%, compared to 54%). In 2007, the juveniles who were recommended for ROR were released at a slightly higher rate (55%) than were their not-recommended counterparts (53%). Comparison of the ROR rates by recommendation in each borough showed higher ROR rates for recommended juveniles in Brooklyn (55%, compared to 47%), Manhattan (48%, compared to 27%), but a lower ROR rate for juveniles who were recommended than for those not recommended in the Bronx (63%, compared to 70%) and Queens (34%, compared to 50%). However, very few juveniles were not recommended for ROR at arraignments in 2008 based on their school attendance and the expectation for someone to attend their arraignment (64 citywide, including 27 in the Bronx, 18 in Brooklyn, 11 in Manhattan, and only 8 in Queens).

-20-

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2008 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 6%

Robbery 1 37%

Robbery 2 44%

Murder 2 1% Assault 1 6%

(N=660)

Other 6%

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2008 JO Arraignments

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

13%

80% 33%

33% 44%

52%

60%

51%

40% 42%

43%

37% 35%

20%

28%

11% 2%

2% 2%

6% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=256)

(N=178)

(N=129)

(N=97)

(N=660)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2008 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

0.4%

0.6%

1.6%

3.1%

1.1%

1 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

3.1% 0.0% 0.0%

7 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

119

46.5%

116

65.2%

38.0%

61.9%

344

52.1%

6 89 18 0 0 2 0 4 0 0

2.3% 34.8% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

20 77 14 0 0 2 0 3 0 0

11.2% 43.3% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

3 36 5 0 3 1 0 1 0 0

2.3% 27.9% 3.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

9 41 6 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

9.3% 42.3% 6.2% 1.0% 1.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

38 243 43 1 4 7 0 8 0 0

5.8% 36.8% 6.5% 0.2% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

136

53.1%

34.3%

60.5%

35.1%

309

46.8%

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

132 0 4 0

51.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

58 0 3 0

32.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

66 0 12 0

51.2% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0%

32 1 1 0

33.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0%

288 1 20 0

43.6% 0.2% 3.0% 0.0%

256

100.0%

178

100.0%

129

100.0%

660

100.0%

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

TOTAL

-24-

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2008 JO Arraignments

ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made 4%

Remand 2%

34%

80%

44%

46% 50% 64%

60% 3%

3% 5%

40% 2%

61% 52%

49%

20%

40% 31%

0% Brooklyn (N=256)

Bronx (N=178)

Manhattan (N=129)

Queens (N=97)

Citywide (N=660)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

0.4%

0.6%

1.6%

3.1%

1.1%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 2 5

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

119

46.5%

116

65.2%

38.0%

61.9%

344

52.1%

49 6 64 0

41.2% 5.0% 53.8% 0.0% 100.0%

62 2 49 3

53.4% 1.7% 42.2% 2.6% 100.0%

15 2 29 3

30.6% 4.1% 59.2% 6.1% 100.0%

16 1 41 2

26.7% 1.7% 68.3% 3.3% 100.0%

142 11 183 8

41.3% 3.2% 53.2% 2.3% 100.0%

136

53.1%

34.3%

60.5%

35.1%

309

46.8%

84 2 50 0

61.8% 1.5% 36.8% 0.0% 100.0%

47 2 12 0

77.0% 3.3% 19.7% 0.0% 100.0%

37 5 36 0

47.4% 6.4% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1 19 0

41.2% 2.9% 55.9% 0.0% 100.0%

182 10 117 0

58.9% 3.2% 37.9% 0.0% 100.0%

256

100.0%

178

100.0%

129

100.0%

660

100.0%

133 8 114 1

52.0% 3.1% 44.5% 0.4% 100.0%

109 4 61 4

61.2% 2.2% 34.3% 2.2% 100.0%

52 7 65 5

40.3% 5.4% 50.4% 3.9% 100.0%

30 2 62 3

30.9% 2.1% 63.9% 3.1% 100.0%

324 21 302 13

49.1% 3.2% 45.8% 2.0% 100.0%

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2008 JO Arraignments

Remand 2%

ROR 47%

Bail Set/Not Made 48%

Bail Set/Made 3%

Males (N=570) Bail Set/Made 2% Bail Set/Not Made 33%

ROR 60%

Remand 5%

Females (N=90)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2008 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 %

226

88.3%

156

87.6%

110

85.3%

80.4%

570

86.4%

113 6 107 0

50.0% 2.7% 47.3% 0.0% 100.0%

93 4 56 3

59.6% 2.6% 35.9% 1.9% 100.0%

41 7 59 3

37.3% 6.4% 53.6% 2.7% 100.0%

23 2 50 3

29.5% 2.6% 64.1% 3.8% 100.0%

270 19 272 9

47.4% 3.3% 47.7% 1.6% 100.0%

11.7%

12.4%

14.7%

19.6%

13.6%

20 2 7 1

66.7% 6.7% 23.3% 3.3% 100.0%

16 0 5 1

72.7% 0.0% 22.7% 4.5% 100.0%

11 0 6 2

57.9% 0.0% 31.6% 10.5% 100.0%

7 0 12 0

36.8% 0.0% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

54 2 30 4

60.0% 2.2% 33.3% 4.4% 100.0%

256

100.0%

178

100.0%

129

100.0%

660

100.0%

133 8 114 1

52.0% 3.1% 44.5% 0.4% 100.0%

109 4 61 4

61.2% 2.2% 34.3% 2.2% 100.0%

52 7 65 5

40.3% 5.4% 50.4% 3.9% 100.0%

30 2 62 3

30.9% 2.1% 63.9% 3.1% 100.0%

324 21 302 13

49.1% 3.2% 45.8% 2.0% 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.

-28-

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough: 2008 JO Arraignments

J5--Recommended J7a--Bench Warrant Recommendation Not Available 100%

J6--Not Recommended J7c--Murder Charge

21%

15%

80%

11%

10%

2% 1% 8%

60%

86%

40%

78%

79%

76% 67%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=256)

Bronx (N=178)

Manhattan (N=129)

Queens (N=97)

Citywide (N=660)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2008 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

219

85.5%

139

78.1%

67.4%

76.3%

519

78.6%

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

120 7 92 0

54.8% 3.2% 42.0% 0.0% 100.0%

88 4 47 0

63.3% 2.9% 33.8% 0.0% 100.0%

42 4 38 3

48.3% 4.6% 43.7% 3.4% 100.0%

25 2 46 1

33.8% 2.7% 62.2% 1.4% 100.0%

275 17 223 4

53.0% 3.3% 43.0% 0.8% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

6.6%

15.2%

8.5%

8.2%

9.5%

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

8 1 8 0

47.1% 5.9% 47.1% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 8 0

70.4% 0.0% 29.6% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 8 0

27.3% 0.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 4 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 1 28 0

54.0% 1.6% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.3%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.1%

5.1%

2.3%

4.1%

3.6%

1 0 6 1

12.5% 0.0% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0%

0 0 5 4

0.0% 0.0% 55.6% 44.4% 100.0%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 14 9

4.2% 0.0% 58.3% 37.5% 100.0%

4.3%

1.7%

20.9%

11.3%

7.9%

3 0 8 0

27.3% 0.0% 72.7% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 2 18 0

25.9% 7.4% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 10 0

9.1% 0.0% 90.9% 0.0% 100.0%

13 2 37 0

25.0% 3.8% 71.2% 0.0% 100.0%

256

100.0%

178

100.0%

129

100.0%

660

100.0%

133 8 114 1

52.0% 3.1% 44.5% 0.4% 100.0%

109 4 61 4

61.2% 2.2% 34.3% 2.2% 100.0%

52 7 65 5

40.3% 5.4% 50.4% 3.9% 100.0%

30 2 62 3

30.9% 2.1% 63.9% 3.1% 100.0%

324 21 302 13

49.1% 3.2% 45.8% 2.0% 100.0%

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

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

-30-

-31-

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 642 cases reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, more than the 546 dockets disposed in 2007 or the 617 dockets disposed in 2006, but comparable to the 644 disposed in 2005. The citywide increase is not reflected equally in each of the boroughs. There were 79 more cases disposed in Brooklyn and 55 more cases disposed in the Bronx. In contrast, there were 28 fewer cases disposed in Queens and 10 fewer in Manhattan. Brooklyn, the borough with the largest volume of JO cases in Criminal Court, accounted for four of every ten disposed JO cases in 2008, compared to only one third of those disposed in 2007. 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, 63 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, reflecting a slight increase (from 61% in 2007) which followed a slight decline (from 65% in 2006) after a steady rise across previous 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 lower in Brooklyn and Queens (both 48%, down from 53% and 55%, respectively) than in Manhattan (54%, up from 41%), and highest in the Bronx (100%, as in 2007). 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 2008 or 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 2006, 2007, or 2008 and only two were dismissed in 2005, compared to 17 percent in 2004. The slight citywide increase in the rate of transfer to the Supreme Court accompanied a very small percentage point increase in the rate of transfer to the Family Court and a small percentage point decrease in the rate of dismissal in the Criminal Court. There were no differences in the Bronx and small changes in Brooklyn. The rate of transfer to the Family Court increased dramatically in Queens, from 17 percent in 2007 to 32 percent in 2008, higher than the rate in any other borough (23% in Brooklyn, and 1% in Manhattan). The rate of dismissal decreased by seven percentage points in Queens and by 9 percentage points in Manhattan, but Manhattan still ranked highest in the rate of dismissal (46%, compared to 30% in Brooklyn, and 20% in Queens). 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 12

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

-32-

across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals13 and may also suggest that there have been changes in those policies. 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 (72%) for B-felony dockets than for C- or D-felony dockets (52%). The citywide increase in the proportion of dockets transferred to the upper court reflects a large increase in the rate of transfer for the dockets with B-felony charges compared to 2007, an eight percentage point increase, but a decrease of four 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 Brooklyn where 63 percent of B-felony dockets were transferred to the upper court compared to only 34 percent of the C- or D-felony dockets. In Queens, 50 percent of B-felony dockets but 36 percent of C- or D-felony dockets were transferred to the Supreme Court. The rate of transfer to the Supreme Court varied by charge severity by only one percentage point in Manhattan and 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 defendant’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 2008 for JO cases was two, as in 2007. Examination of length of case by borough also showed a change only in Manhattan (to a median of 2 appearances, down from 3) and no change in the other boroughs. The median number of appearances in lower court was highest in Queens (5 appearances), followed by Manhattan and Brooklyn (2 appearances). In the Bronx, the median number of appearances was only one, reflecting the universal transfer of JO cases to the upper court from arraignment in Criminal Court. In 2007, the median number of appearances decreased from three to two appearances for the two largest release status categories, ROR and ‘bail set not made.’ In 2008, the median number of appearances decreased for the two smallest release status categories: ‘bail set and made’ (from 4 to 3 appearances) and ‘remand’ (from 3.5 to 2 appearances). Despite the absence of change in the median number of appearances in the lower court, the median number of days in Criminal Court decreased sharply, from about a month in 2007 to 16 days in 2008 (Table 3d). Yet the median number of days in the lower court decreased in only 13

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

-33-

two boroughs, from 92 to 26 in Manhattan, and from 92 to 81 in Queens. In Brooklyn, the median number of days in the Criminal Court increased by five days to 37 days, and there was no change in the Bronx. The citywide decrease in the median number of days to disposition primarily reflects the change in the borough composition of cases that reached disposition in the lower court. The two boroughs where the medians of elapsed days were highest in 2007 were the two boroughs with the steepest decrease in the volume of cases that completed lower court processing in 2008. In 2007, Manhattan and Queens together accounted for 45 percent of Criminal Court dispositions for JO cases, compared to only a third of lower court dispositions in 2008. 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 (30 days, down from 40 in 2007) or on bail (22 days, compared to 102 days in 2007) 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 (4 days, down from 8 days). 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 11 weeks in Queens. Among those released on recognizance at arraignment, a median of zero days elapsed from arraignment to disposition in the Bronx, eight 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 reached disposition in Criminal Court a median of three weeks faster than did Cor D-felony cases (5 days, compared to 26 days). However, it is important to note that the median number of days from arraignment to disposition for B-felony cases is a sharp decrease from 32 days in 2007 while the median number of days for cases with less severe charges decreased by only four days. There were 29 more B felony cases disposed in the Criminal Court in 2008 than in 2007, but there were 53 more Bronx cases disposed in 2008 than in 2007, and each of those cases reached disposition at the arraignment appearance, in zero 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: 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

11%

80% 29%

33%

43%

51%

60%

52%

40% 48%

43%

38% 35%

20%

28%

11%

0% Brooklyn (N=257)

3% 2%

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=178)

(N=123)

(N=84)

(N=642)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

0.4%

0.6%

1.6%

3.6%

1.1%

1 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

3.6% 0.0% 0.0%

7 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

119

46.3%

116

65.2%

37.4%

66.7%

337

52.5%

4 91 19 0 0 2 0 3 0 0

1.6% 35.4% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

20 77 14 0 0 2 0 3 0 0

11.2% 43.3% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

4 34 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

3.3% 27.6% 4.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 40 6 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

7.1% 47.6% 7.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

34 242 44 1 3 6 0 7 0 0

5.3% 37.7% 6.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

137

53.3%

34.3%

61.0%

29.8%

298

46.4%

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

132 0 5 0

51.4% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%

58 0 3 0

32.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

64 0 11 0

52.0% 0.0% 8.9% 0.0%

24 1 0 0

28.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

278 1 19 0

43.3% 0.2% 3.0% 0.0%

257

100.0%

178

100.0%

123

100.0%

642

100.0%

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

TOTAL

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Dismissals

Brooklyn (N=257)

Transfers to Supreme Court

48%

30%

23%

Transfers to Family Court

Bronx (N=178)

100%

Manhattan (N=123)

Queens (N=84)

54%

46%

32%

Citywide (N=642)

20%

14%

100%

75%

50%

48%

23%

25%

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

63%

25%

50%

75%

Percentage Disposed in Supreme Court

100%

-38-

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

73% 63%

52%

40 27% 20

21%

20%

23% 14%

7% 0

A or B Felonies (N=344)

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=298)

(N=642)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

A FELONIES:

0.4%

0.6%

1.6%

3.6%

1.1%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

119

46.3%

116

65.2%

37.4%

66.7%

337

52.5%

37 7 75

31.1% 5.9% 63.0% 100.0%

0 0 116

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21 1 24

45.7% 2.2% 52.2% 100.0%

11 17 28

19.6% 30.4% 50.0% 100.0%

69 25 243

20.5% 7.4% 72.1% 100.0%

137

53.3%

34.3%

61.0%

29.8%

298

46.4%

39 52 46

28.5% 38.0% 33.6% 100.0%

0 0 61

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35 0 40

46.7% 0.0% 53.3% 100.0%

6 10 9

24.0% 40.0% 36.0% 100.0%

80 62 156

26.8% 20.8% 52.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

257

100.0%

178

100.0%

123

100.0%

642

100.0%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court TOTAL

76 59 122

29.6% 23.0% 47.5% 100.0%

0 0 178

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56 1 66

45.5% 0.8% 53.7% 100.0%

17 27 40

20.2% 32.1% 47.6% 100.0%

149 87 406

23.2% 13.6% 63.2% 100.0%

B FELONIES: Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

-40-

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR 6

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Appearances

5 4 3

3 2

1 0

A or B Felonies (N=344)

C or D Felonies (N=298)

All Charges (N=642)

-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 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

2.0

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 0 0 1

2.0

0 0 0 1

1.0

0 0 0 2

1.5

0 0 2 1

2.0 5.0

0 0 2 5

2.0 2.0

119

3.0

116

1.0

2.0

5.0

337

2.0

54 4 61 0

3.0 3.5 2.0 -

62 2 49 3

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

12 2 28 4

3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5

13 1 40 2

4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

141 9 178 9

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

137

2.0

1.0

2.0

4.0

298

2.0

80 2 55 0

3.0 3.0 2.0 -

47 2 12 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

39 4 32 0

2.0 3.5 2.0 -

12 0 13 0

4.0 4.0 -

178 8 112 0

2.0 3.0 2.0 -

257

2.0

178

1.0

123

2.0

5.0

642

2.0

134 6 116 1

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

109 4 61 4

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

51 6 60 6

2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0

25 1 55 3

4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

319 17 292 14

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

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

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR 100

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Days

75 50 34 34 25

23 22 5

30 22

C or D Felonies

All Charges

A or B Felonies (N=344)

(N=298)

(N=642)

-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 2008 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS 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

35.0

0.0

2.0

14.0

9.0

0 0 0 1

35.0

0 0 0 1

0.0

0 0 0 2

2.0

0 0 2 1

15.0 9.0

0 0 2 5

15.0 4.0

119

35.0

116

0.0

16.5

80.0

337

5.0

54 4 61 0

68.5 105.0 5.0 -

62 2 49 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

12 2 28 4

105.0 49.5 5.0 101.5

13 1 40 2

81.0 164.0 77.0 98.0

141 9 178 9

23.0 22.0 5.0 5.0

137

41.0

0.0

34.0

110.0

298

26.0

80 2 55 0

56.5 50.5 5.0 -

47 2 12 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

39 4 32 0

89.0 130.5 5.0 -

12 0 13 0

106.5 110.0 -

178 8 112 0

34.0 33.5 5.0 -

257

37.0

178

0.0

123

26.0

81.0

642

16.0

134 6 116 1

57.5 56.5 5.0 35.0

109 4 61 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51 6 60 6

92.0 75.5 5.0 4.5

25 1 55 3

103.0 164.0 80.0 71.0

319 17 292 14

30.0 22.0 5.0 4.5

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

-44-

-45-

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2008 (429) was far larger than in 2007 (320). The increase in the citywide volume primarily reflects increases in Brooklyn (up 58 cases to 142) and the Bronx (up 54 cases to 175). The increase was smaller in Manhattan (up 15 cases to 70) and only 42 cases reached the first appearance in Supreme Court in Queens in 2008, 18 fewer than in 2007. It is important to remember that 2007 and 2008 volumes are not comparable to the volumes 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 routinely assigned an indictment number. 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 was far greater (109) in the Bronx . The charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,14 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), shows that first- and second-degree robbery were still the most common charges. These charges together accounted for about three quarters of the JO cases entering the upper court in 2008, less than they did in the previous reporting period (83%). First-degree robbery accounted for 13 percent of all juvenile arrests during 2008, but for four of every ten (40%) 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, few defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2008 pled guilty (6%) and more than a third of the juveniles pled not guilty (36%) at their first appearance. Few cases were transferred to the Family Court (15) and fewer cases (10) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (51%) 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 (48%), compared to only three in Brooklyn and one in the Bronx. None of the juveniles in Manhattan pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. This finding reflects borough differences in 14

Pre-arraignment hearings are held in Supreme Court. The first appearance may or may not be that at which the defendant is arraigned, but it does reflect the initial decision-making opportunity in Supreme Court.

-46-

plea policies and in the use of the Superior Court Information (SCI).15 The proportion of juveniles who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 68 percent in Brooklyn, to 59 percent in Manhattan, and 43 percent in Queens. None of the juveniles prosecuted in the Bronx pled not guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. On the other hand, most of the Bronx cases (86%) were continued at the first appearance compared to nearly four of every ten Manhattan JO cases, a quarter of those in Brooklyn, and 10 percent of those in Queens. Six percent (11 cases) of the Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court as were only four other cases, two from the Manhattan Supreme Court and two from the Brooklyn 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 but excluded cases that were dismissed or transferred to the Family Court. Juveniles were released on their own recognizance or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in six of every ten JO cases. Nearly three of every ten juveniles were held on bail and nearly one in every ten was 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 nearly six of every ten cases with B-felony charges and in seven of every ten cases with C- or D-felony charges. However, 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 (40%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (52%). 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 (64%), followed by Brooklyn (38%), and Manhattan and Queens (24%). However, the juveniles in the Bronx were far less likely to secure release on bail (2%) than were those in any other borough (31% in Queens, 29% in Brooklyn, 22% in Manhattan). When the proportions released on bail and on recognizance at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, the overall rate of release was very similar in Brooklyn (67%) and the Bronx (66%), but lower in Queens (55%) and Manhattan (46%). 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 2008, citywide, it took a median of 16 days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), compared to 14 days in 2007. The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity (16 days for B-felony cases and 18 days for C- or D-felony cases). Cases in which the juvenile was released on recognizance (19 days) or bail (18 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 (10 days) or remanded with no bail set (8 days). Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. As in the previous reporting period, the longest median time from lower to upper court was in Brooklyn (29 days, up from 25 15 An SCI is prepared by the prosecutorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office and is used as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. The distinction regarding type of accusatory instrument to which a plea is taken is not available for this report.

-47-

days), followed by Manhattan (15 days, up from 9 days). The median number of days from lower to upper court remained at five days in the Bronx. In Queens, however, the median number of days increased from zero days in 2007 to ten days in 2008. 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. Borough differences in the median number of days within charge class and release status are often substantial and should be viewed with caution because of the small numbers of cases in some of the borough-charge-release status categories. Further, citywide figures seem to reflect the borough composition of particular charge-release status combinations. Overall, the average number of days from lower to upper court 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: 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 5%

Robbery 1 40% Robbery 2 36%

Murder 2 2% Other 7%

Assault 1 10%

(N=429)

-50-

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

100%

10%

11%

Robbery 1 Other

10%

80% 26%

31% 39%

60%

36%

47%

40% 43% 42% 40% 41%

33%

20%

2% 10%

1% 1%

12%

3% 3%

5% 2%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=142)

(N=175)

(N=70)

(N=42)

(N=429)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2008 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) Other Non-Jo Offenses

TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

0.7%

0.6%

2.9%

11.9%

2.1%

1 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

5 0 0

11.9% 0.0% 0.0%

9 0 0

2.1% 0.0% 0.0%

56.3%

116

66.3%

38.6%

57.1%

247

57.6%

2 58 16 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

1.4% 40.8% 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

18 74 20 0 0 1 0 3 0 0

10.3% 42.3% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

2 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.9% 32.9% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 18 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

2.4% 42.9% 7.1% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

23 173 41 0 1 3 0 4 2 0

5.4% 40.3% 9.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0%

43.0%

33.1%

58.6%

31.0%

173

40.3%

55 0 3 0 3

38.7% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

54 0 1 0 3

30.9% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.7%

33 0 8 0 0

47.1% 0.0% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0%

11 1 0 0 1

26.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

153 1 12 0 7

35.7% 0.2% 2.8% 0.0% 1.6%

142

100.0%

175

100.0%

429

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Pled Guilty Dismissed 100%

Pled Not Guilty Continued

Transfer to Family Court Bench Warrant 1%

26%

80%

39% 51%

48%

60%

3% 86%

40%

68%

59% 36%

43%

20% 6%

6% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=142)

(N=175)

(N=70)

(N=42)

(N=429)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

A FELONIES:

0.7%

0.6%

2.9%

11.9%

2.1%

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

0 0 0 1 0 0

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

0 0 1 0 0 0

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

0 0 1 1 0 0

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

0 0 0 5 0 0

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

0 0 2 7 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 77.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

56.3%

116

66.3%

38.6%

57.1%

247

57.6%

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

0 1 20 57 1 1

0.0% 1.3% 25.0% 71.3% 1.3% 1.3% 100.0%

4 6 103 0 1 2

3.4% 5.2% 88.8% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 100.0%

0 0 6 21 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 77.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 11 10 0

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 45.8% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 7 132 89 12 3

1.6% 2.8% 53.4% 36.0% 4.9% 1.2% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

43.0%

33.1%

58.6%

31.0%

173

40.3%

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

0 1 17 39 2 2

0.0% 1.6% 27.9% 63.9% 3.3% 3.3% 100.0%

6 5 47 0 0 0

10.3% 8.6% 81.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 20 19 0 0

0.0% 4.9% 48.8% 46.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 2 10 0

0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 76.9% 0.0% 100.0%

6 8 85 60 12 2

3.5% 4.6% 49.1% 34.7% 6.9% 1.2% 100.0%

142

100.0%

175

100.0%

429

100.0%

0 2 37 97 3 3

0.0% 1.4% 26.1% 68.3% 2.1% 2.1% 100.0%

10 11 151 0 1 2

5.7% 6.3% 86.3% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 100.0%

0 2 27 41 0 0

0.0% 2.9% 38.6% 58.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 18 20 0

0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 42.9% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

10 15 219 156 24 5

2.3% 3.5% 51.0% 36.4% 5.6% 1.2% 100.0%

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

-54-

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100% 7%

10%

9% 21%

80%

28%

26%

29% 44%

24%

60% 18%

29%

40%

31% 22% 64%

44%

20%

38% 24%

24%

0% Brooklyn (N=137)

Bronx (N=152)

Manhattan (N=68)

Queens (N=42)

Citywide (N=399)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

RELEASE STATUS A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

0.7%

2.9%

11.9%

2.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 1

0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 5

0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 55.6% 100.0%

56.9%

104

68.4%

39.7%

57.1%

233

58.4%

26 25 22 5

33.3% 32.1% 28.2% 6.4% 100.0%

61 2 32 9

58.7% 1.9% 30.8% 8.7% 100.0%

2 7 15 3

7.4% 25.9% 55.6% 11.1% 100.0%

4 8 7 5

16.7% 33.3% 29.2% 20.8% 100.0%

93 42 76 22

39.9% 18.0% 32.6% 9.4% 100.0%

42.3%

30.9%

57.4%

31.0%

157

39.3%

26 15 13 4

44.8% 25.9% 22.4% 6.9% 100.0%

36 1 10 0

76.6% 2.1% 21.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14 8 15 2

35.9% 20.5% 38.5% 5.1% 100.0%

6 4 0 3

46.2% 30.8% 0.0% 23.1% 100.0%

82 28 38 9

52.2% 17.8% 24.2% 5.7% 100.0%

137

100.0%

152

100.0%

399

100.0%

52 40 35 10

38.0% 29.2% 25.5% 7.3% 100.0%

97 3 42 10

63.8% 2.0% 27.6% 6.6% 100.0%

16 15 30 7

23.5% 22.1% 44.1% 10.3% 100.0%

10 13 10 9

23.8% 31.0% 23.8% 21.4% 100.0%

175 71 117 36

43.9% 17.8% 29.3% 9.0% 100.0%

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

-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: 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR 30

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Median Number of Days 27

25 20

15 10

10 8

7 5

5 0

A or B Felonies (N=242)

C or D Felonies (N=157)

All Charges (N=399)

-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 2008 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

RELEASE STATUS 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

15.0

4.0

10.5

14.0

0 0 0 1

15.0

0 0 0 1

4.0

0 0 0 2

10.5

0 1 3 1

15.0 14.0 10.0

0 1 3 5

15.0 14.0 10.0

31.0

104

4.0

15.0

13.0

233

16.0

26 25 22 5

21.5 21.0 43.5 43.0

61 2 32 9

13.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

2 7 15 3

20.5 18.0 7.0 17.0

4 8 7 5

0.0 14.5 14.0 0.0

93 42 76 22

18.0 19.0 7.0 4.5

26.0

21.0

15.0

0.0

157

18.0

26 15 13 4

20.0 21.0 40.0 32.0

36 1 10 0

30.5 2.0 4.0 -

14 8 15 2

15.0 17.0 10.0 21.0

6 4 0 3

0.0 7.0 0.0

82 28 38 9

20.0 18.0 15.0 27.0

137

29.0

152

5.0

15.0

10.5

399

16.0

52 40 35 10

20.5 21.0 43.0 37.5

97 3 42 10

19.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

16 15 30 7

15.0 17.0 9.0 16.0

10 13 10 9

0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0

175 71 117 36

19.0 18.0 10.0 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 transferred to Family Court or because a bench warrant was ordered or stayed, or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed.

-58-

-59-

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 315 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2008, little more than the 309 cases disposed in 2007. The 2007 and 2008 totals are 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. Currently, cases, not indictments, are 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 more than eight of every ten dispositions (83%) in 2008. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge was assault, which accounted for six percent of Supreme Court dispositions in 2008. None of the 2008 disposed cases had A-felony disposition charges. B-felony charges accounted for 56 percent of disposed cases and C-, D-, or E-felony charges accounted for the remaining cases. Borough differences in the distribution of JO disposition charges were not large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). The proportion of cases with first-degree robbery charges at disposition ranged from 35 percent in Manhattan to 45 to 47 percent in the other boroughs. The proportion charged with second-degree robbery at disposition ranged from only a quarter of disposed cases in Queens and four of every ten in Brooklyn and the Bronx to just over half of cases disposed in Manhattan. Borough differences in the proportion of JO cases disposed with first- or seconddegree robbery charges are also rather narrow. Only 72 percent of cases disposed in the Queens Supreme Court were disposed with first- or second-degree robbery charges, compared to 84, 85, and 86 percent of disposed cases in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively. Exhibit 5B and Table 5b show that, once a JO case was filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate was very high in each borough except the Bronx: Overall, 75 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was highest in Queens (95%), followed by Manhattan (90%) and Brooklyn (82%), and lowest in the Bronx (57%). 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. For JO cases, the juvenile may be prosecuted in the adult court only for specific serious felony offenses, 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 (72%) than were cases disposed at the B-felony level (78%), 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 wide in the Bronx (64%, compared to only 48%), compared to Brooklyn (83%, compared to 80%). The numbers of disposed JO cases that did not result in convictions in 2008 in Manhattan (5) and Queens (2) are too small for meaningful charge comparisons within borough.

-60-

Citywide, 235 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing in 2008, compared to 232 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 61 percent of JO cases that reached disposition and were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period (compared to 62% in 2007). Forty six percent of juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and nearly 15 percent were released on bail. As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for defendants in JO cases to be held on bail at conviction pending sentencing in Supreme Court; in only three percent of disposed JO cases was the convicted juvenile in detention because the bail could not be met. The convicted juveniles were remanded with no bail set in more than a third of the disposed cases. The rates of release for convicted juveniles in the JO cases adjourned for sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period varied by borough. In 2008, the highest rate of release at conviction was in Manhattan where juveniles were released in nearly eight of every ten disposed cases. The rates of release were lower at disposition in JO cases in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens (58%, 57% and 54%, respectively). The differences are wider when only the ROR rates at disposition are considered. More than two thirds of the defendants in JO cases in Manhattan (68%) were released on recognizance at disposition, compared to 52 percent in the Bronx, 40 percent in Brooklyn, and only 24 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 nearly three of every ten JO cases adjourned for sentencing, compared to 17 percent in Brooklyn, 11 percent in Manhattan and only five percent in the Bronx. Exhibits 5D.1 and 5D.2 (and Table 5d) 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 JO cases reached disposition in a JO Part. The proportion of juvenile cases that reached disposition in a JO Part varied substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in 2008 in Brooklyn (93%), followed by Manhattan (88%), and then the Bronx and Queens (49% and 46%, respectively). 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 the merger of the Bronx criminal courts. Since virtually all Bronx JO cases are transferred to the Supreme Court, virtually all dispositions take place in the upper 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. If Bronx cases that were not indicted but were dismissed or transferred to the Family Court from the upper court were excluded from the Supreme Court analysis, the proportion of cases disposed in the JO Parts would be nearly 77 percent. The borough differences in the proportions of juvenile cases disposed in JO Parts also reflect court and district attorney policies regarding particular types of cases and perhaps the presence of adult co-defendants, information that is not available in the CJA data. Conviction rates 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 disposed in other parts. The low conviction rates for non-JO Parts primarily reflects the low

-61-

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 merger 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 other boroughs and these non-conviction dispositions tend to occur in non-JO Parts. 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 (and Tables 5e and 5f) separately by release status, charge severity and borough, and in Exhibits 5G and 5H (and Tables 5g and 5h) separately by JO Part versus non-JO Parts, charge severity and borough. The current discussion of length of case, citywide and by borough is based on the latter displays because, unlike the former, Exhibits 5G and 5H and Tables 5g and 5h do not exclude cases without release statuses. Citywide, it took a median of six appearance and 152 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 B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 178 days) than for JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (5 appearances and 122 days). The citywide data on the median number of appearances and the median number of days to disposition in Supreme Court (Exhibits 5G and 5H) again masked borough differences (Tables 5g and 5h). It took an average of only two appearances to reach disposition in Queens (where nearly 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 eight 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 seven days in Queens, to nearly five months in the Bronx, and nearly six months in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 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, the median number of appearances to reach disposition varied little by release status. However, the median number of days to disposition was about six months for cases with juveniles who were released on recognizance (7 appearances, 195 days) or bail (7 appearances, 168 days) and about four months for cases with juveniles who were held on bail (7 appearances, 195 days) or remanded with no bail set (8 appearances and 127 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, citywide. The median number of appearances and days to disposition was higher in the JO Parts

-62-

(9 appearances and 212 days), as compared to non-JO Parts (2 appearances and 1 day). 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 (9) than in Brooklyn (7) or Queens (7.5). Cases took a median about six months to reach disposition in the JO Parts in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan, but a median of more than ten months in the JO Part in the Bronx.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Offenses 3%

Assault 1 6%

Other 6% Robbery 1 44%

Robbery 2 39% Att. Murder 2 2% (N=315)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

Non-JO Offenses 100%

4% 3% 6%

4% 6% 2%

80%

3% 6%

12%

7% 40%

39%

51%

60%

26%

40% 45%

46%

20%

46%

44%

35%

Brooklyn (N=94)

Bronx (N=129)

Manhattan (N=49)

Queens

Citywide

(N=43)

(N=315)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2008 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

56.4%

59.7%

40.8%

65.1%

178

56.5%

1 43 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

1.1% 45.7% 6.4% 2.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4 58 9 0 0 3 0 3 0 0

3.1% 45.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1 17 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

2.0% 34.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 20 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

2.3% 46.5% 7.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0%

7 138 19 2 3 3 0 6 0 0

2.2% 43.8% 6.0% 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

43.6%

40.3%

59.2%

34.9%

137

43.5%

37 0 0 0 4

39.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3%

51 0 1 0 0

39.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

25 0 2 0 2

51.0% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 4.1%

11 1 0 0 3

25.6% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

124 1 3 0 9

39.4% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.9%

100.0%

129

100.0%

315

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

Other

100%

10% 18%

25%

80%

43%

60% 95%

90% 82%

40%

75% 57%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=94)

(N=129)

(N=49)

(N=43)

(N=315)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

A FELONIES:

Conviction Other Subtotal

0 0

B FELONIES:

56.4%

59.7%

40.8%

65.1%

178

56.5%

Conviction Other Subtotal

44 9

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

49 28

63.6% 36.4% 100.0%

17 3

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

28 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

138 40

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

43.6%

40.3%

59.2%

34.9%

137

43.5%

33 8

80.5% 19.5% 100.0%

25 27

48.1% 51.9% 100.0%

27 2

93.1% 6.9% 100.0%

13 2

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

98 39

71.5% 28.5% 100.0%

100.0%

129

100.0%

315

100.0%

77 17

81.9% 18.1% 100.0%

74 55

57.4% 42.6% 100.0%

44 5

89.8% 10.2% 100.0%

41 2

95.3% 4.7% 100.0%

236 79

74.9% 25.1% 100.0%

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

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

0 0

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100% 18%

80%

37%

39%

36% 46%

11%

60%

15%

17%

40%

29% 68% 52%

20%

46%

40% 24%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=77)

(N=73)

(N=44)

(N=41)

(N=235)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

57.1%

65.8%

38.6%

68.3%

137

58.3%

15 8 2 19

34.1% 18.2% 4.5% 43.2% 100.0%

21 3 3 21

43.8% 6.3% 6.3% 43.8% 100.0%

13 1 0 3

76.5% 5.9% 0.0% 17.6% 100.0%

5 7 0 16

17.9% 25.0% 0.0% 57.1% 100.0%

54 19 5 59

39.4% 13.9% 3.6% 43.1% 100.0%

42.9%

34.2%

61.4%

31.7%

41.7%

16 5 1 11

48.5% 15.2% 3.0% 33.3% 100.0%

17 1 1 6

68.0% 4.0% 4.0% 24.0% 100.0%

17 4 1 5

63.0% 14.8% 3.7% 18.5% 100.0%

5 5 0 3

38.5% 38.5% 0.0% 23.1% 100.0%

55 15 3 25

56.1% 15.3% 3.1% 25.5% 100.0%

100.0%

235

100.0%

31 13 3 30

40.3% 16.9% 3.9% 39.0% 100.0%

38 4 4 27

52.1% 5.5% 5.5% 37.0% 100.0%

30 5 1 8

68.2% 11.4% 2.3% 18.2% 100.0%

10 12 0 19

24.4% 29.3% 0.0% 46.3% 100.0%

109 34 8 84

46.4% 14.5% 3.4% 35.7% 100.0%

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

-70-

Exhibit 5D.1 Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

100%

Non-JO Part

12% 32%

80% 51%

54%

60% 93%

88%

40%

68% 49%

46%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=94)

(N=129)

(N=49)

(N=43)

(N=315)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Convicted

100% 89%

87%

84%

80%

60% 51%

49%

50%

40% 29%

8% 8%

21%

20%

20% 7%

29%

22%

8% 6%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

B Felonies (N=178)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=137)

Note: There were no A Felonies for this reporting period.

Non-JO Part

All Charges (N=315)

-72-

Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

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

56.4%

59.7%

40.8%

65.1%

178

56.5%

43 4 4 51

84.3% 7.8% 7.8% 100.0%

37 0 3 40

92.5% 0.0% 7.5% 100.0%

17 1 2 20

85.0% 5.0% 10.0% 100.0%

16 0 0 16

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

113 5 9 127

89.0% 3.9% 7.1% 100.0%

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

12 11 14 37

32.4% 29.7% 37.8% 100.0%

0 0 0

12 0 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25 11 15 51

49.0% 21.6% 29.4% 100.0%

43.6%

40.3%

59.2%

34.9%

137

43.5%

28 6 2 36

77.8% 16.7% 5.6% 100.0%

18 0 5 23

78.3% 0.0% 21.7% 100.0%

23 0 0 23

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 0 4

75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

72 7 7 86

83.7% 8.1% 8.1% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 8 14 29

24.1% 27.6% 48.3% 100.0%

4 2 0 6

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 1 11

90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

26 10 15 51

51.0% 19.6% 29.4% 100.0%

100.0%

129

100.0%

315

100.0%

71 10 6 87

81.6% 11.5% 6.9% 100.0%

55 0 8 63

87.3% 0.0% 12.7% 100.0%

40 1 2 43

93.0% 2.3% 4.7% 100.0%

19 1 0 20

95.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

185 12 16 213

86.9% 5.6% 7.5% 100.0%

6 0 1 7

85.7% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

19 19 28 66

28.8% 28.8% 42.4% 100.0%

4 2 0 6

66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

22 0 1 23

95.7% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0%

51 21 30 102

50.0% 20.6% 29.4% 100.0%

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

-73-

Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

20 Median Number of Appearances 16 12 9 8

7 5

0 A or B Felonies (N=177)

C or D Felonies (N=110)

All Charges (N=287)

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: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

ROR 350

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Median Number of Days

300 250 200 150

209 174

194

195

168 136

100

168 131 127

108 70

50 0 A or B Felonies (N=177)

C or D Felonies (N=110)

All Charges (N=287)

-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 2008 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

10.5

0 0 0 2

10.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

10.5

9.0

8.0

9.0

3.0

175

8.0

19 15 13 2

8.0 7.0 10.0 8.5

46 1 30 0

6.0 9.0 11.5 -

2 5 8 5

11.5 9.0 9.0 9.0

4 9 12 4

1.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

71 30 63 11

6.0 7.0 9.0 8.0

6.0

5.5

7.0

1.0

110

6.0

24 5 10 1

7.5 5.0 4.0 4.0

26 1 3 0

7.0 3.0 4.0 -

12 4 8 3

8.5 5.0 6.0 10.0

6 3 1 3

1.0 1.0 13.0 1.0

68 13 22 7

7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0

7.0

107

7.0

9.0

2.0

287

7.0

43 20 23 5

8.0 6.5 7.0 9.0

72 2 33 0

6.0 6.0 10.0 -

14 9 16 8

10.5 7.0 8.0 9.5

10 12 13 7

1.0 3.5 5.0 1.0

139 43 85 20

7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes cases for which the release status at the first appearance in the Supreme Court was not available because the case was was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death.

-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 2008 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

334.5

0 0 0 2

334.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

334.5

210.0

211.0

188.0

21.0

175

188.0

19 15 13 2

212.0 178.0 194.0 187.0

46 1 30 0

176.5 297.0 342.0 -

2 5 8 5

238.0 224.0 188.0 154.0

4 9 12 4

0.0 45.0 58.0 0.0

71 30 63 11

209.0 173.5 194.0 118.0

140.0

134.5

137.0

0.0

110

132.0

24 5 10 1

189.0 168.0 71.5 79.0

26 1 3 0

213.0 1.0 34.0 -

12 4 8 3

197.5 120.5 78.5 244.0

6 3 1 3

0.0 0.0 225.0 0.0

68 13 22 7

167.5 108.0 69.5 79.0

178.0

107

211.0

175.0

4.0

287

168.0

43 20 23 5

204.0 173.5 130.0 238.0

72 2 33 0

192.0 149.0 297.0 -

14 9 16 8

236.0 168.0 115.5 180.0

10 12 13 7

0.0 26.0 67.0 0.0

139 43 85 20

195.0 168.0 131.0 127.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes cases for which the release status at the first appearance in the Supreme Court was not available because the case was was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death.

-76-

Exhibit 5G Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Appearances

15 10

8 3

1 0 A or B Felonies (N=189)

C or D Felonies (N=126)

All Charges (N=315)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

300 250

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Days

222 192

200

212

150 100 50

0 A or B Felonies (N=189)

C or D Felonies (N=126)

All Charges (N=315)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

10.5

2 0

10.5 -

0 0

2 0

10.5 -

8.5

6.0

9.0

3.5

187

7.0

47 3

8.0 23.0

47 40

12.0 3.0

20 0

9.0 -

18 12

6.5 1.0

132 55

9.0 3.0

6.0

3.0

7.0

1.0

126

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

38 4

6.5 3.0

16 26

11.5 2.0

23 6

8.0 5.5

2 11

13.5 1.0

79 47

8.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

129

5.0

8.0

2.0

315

6.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

87 7

7.0 11.0

63 66

12.0 3.0

43 6

9.0 5.5

20 23

7.5 1.0

213 102

9.0 2.0

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 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

334.5

2 0

334.5 -

0 0

2 0

334.5 -

209.5

182.0

188.0

33.0

187

178.0

47 3

202.0 503.0

47 40

374.0 6.5

20 0

188.0 -

18 12

128.0 0.0

132 55

220.0 3.0

140.0

70.5

137.0

0.0

126

122.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

38 4

156.0 50.5

16 26

306.5 1.0

23 6

140.0 122.5

2 11

291.5 0.0

79 47

192.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

178.0

129

149.0

168.0

7.0

315

152.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

87 7

178.0 162.0

63 66

313.0 3.0

43 6

185.0 122.5

20 23

178.5 0.0

213 102

212.0 1.0

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 225 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2008 were for juvenile offenders, fewer than in 2007 (265) or 2006 (233), but more than in 2005 (203). Overall, nearly six of every ten sentences for juvenile offenders in 2008 were custodial, more than in 2007 (50%) or 2006 (53%). This includes either imprisonment only (49%, up from 43% in 2007) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (10%, up from 7% in 2007). In 2007, the boroughs differed widely in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences, with a range of 36 percentage points, but the range decreased to only 11 percentage points in 2008. There were sharp increases in rates of incarceration in the two boroughs with the lowest rates in 2007, Queens (58%, up from 37%) and Manhattan (63%, up from 35%), and there were substantial decreases in the proportion of sentences that included any prison time in the two boroughs that showed the highest rates in 2007, the Bronx (64%, down from 71%), followed by Brooklyn (53%, down from 66%). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (68%, up from 59% in 2007) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (45%, up from 32% in 2007). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2008 in the JO Parts to those given in non-JO Parts, citywide, and for different conviction-charge severities. Sentences for juveniles convicted in JO Parts were much more likely to require straight imprisonment (54%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (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 (61% in JO Parts, compared to 51% 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 43 sentences given in non-JO Parts in 2008. 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 were 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 nearly half (46%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2008. 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. Exhibits 6C.1 and 6C.2, and Table 6c, display the conditions of sentence granted in the JO Parts, compared to non-JO Parts, citywide, for different conviction-charge classes. Citywide,

-80-

juveniles were granted YO16 status in 78 percent of the sentences during the reporting period17. Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were slightly less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (78%, compared to 81%). 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 (88%), as did 83 percent of those in Brooklyn and 78 percent in the Bronx, but only 57 percent in Manhattan. 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 was presented for the first time for the previous reporting period (Exhibit 6D and Table 6d). The number of cases with juvenile defendants that were sentenced to imprisonment in 2008 (133) was comparable to the number in 2007 (132), although there was an increase in the volume of incarcerative sentences in the Bronx (from 39 to 47) and a decrease in Manhattan (from 31 to 22), with little or no difference in Brooklyn and Queens. Citywide, more than four of every ten juveniles sentenced to imprisonment were sentenced to one year or less, compared to only 29 percent in 2008, and there was a similar decrease in the proportion of juveniles sentenced to a minimum of one and a third years or more (26%, down from 38%). There was little change in the proportion of sentences for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years (31%). Incarcerative sentences for cases with Bfelony conviction charges were longer than those for cases with less severe charges at conviction: More than a third of incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to nearly six of every ten of those at the C- or D-felony level. As shown in Exhibit 6D, borough differences in the lengths of sentences were very wide, but the low volume of juveniles sentenced to incarceration limits meaningful comparisons. It seems clear, however, that in 2008 few (4) of the Manhattan sentences were for one year or less, and that short-term incarceration was more characteristic of sentences in Brooklyn (38%) and Queens (46%), and was especially common in the Bronx (58%). In 2007, no juveniles sentenced to imprisonment in Manhattan received a sentence of one year or less than a year, but a quarter of incarcerative sentences in the Bronx and Brooklyn and nearly all of those in Queens (82%) were sentences of one year or less. 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 2008 for each of the conviction-charge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2008 appeared a median of eleven times in Supreme Court, two fewer than during the previous reporting period, and a median of over nine months elapsed between the first appearance and sentencing, down from nearly a year in 2007. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (6 appearances, 107 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of ten appearances in Brooklyn (254 days), 14 appearances in the Bronx (432 days) and 17 appearances (430 days) in Manhattan. 16

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

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

-81-

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 A- or B-felony charges at conviction took a median of eleven appearances and 288 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court. JO cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction took two fewer appearance and seven fewer days (Exhibits 6E and 6F). The data show longer time to sentencing for JO cases with more severe charges in each borough, although data on the number of appearances to disposition are less consistent across the boroughs. It is difficult to summarize patterns in length of case (either by median number of appearances or median number of days) by release status at conviction or by release status and conviction-charge severity for several reasons. 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: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other 3%

36%

80%

29%

38%

37%

45%

60% 19%

10%

17%

40% 63% 51%

49%

45%

20%

41%

0% Brooklyn (N=76)

Bronx (N=73)

Manhattan (N=35)

Queens (N=41)

Citywide (N=225)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal B FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal C OR D FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal ALL CHARGES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

57.9%

63.0%

54.3%

70.7%

138

61.3%

24 0 19 1

54.5% 0.0% 43.2% 2.3% 100.0%

26 12 8 0

56.5% 26.1% 17.4% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 4 3

63.2% 0.0% 21.1% 15.8% 100.0%

14 6 9 0

48.3% 20.7% 31.0% 0.0% 100.0%

76 18 40 4

55.1% 13.0% 29.0% 2.9% 100.0%

42.1%

37.0%

45.7%

29.3%

38.7%

15 1 15 1

46.9% 3.1% 46.9% 3.1% 100.0%

7 2 18 0

25.9% 7.4% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 6 0

62.5% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 6 2

25.0% 8.3% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

35 4 45 3

40.2% 4.6% 51.7% 3.4% 100.0%

100.0%

225

100.0%

39 1 34 2

51.3% 1.3% 44.7% 2.6% 100.0%

33 14 26 0

45.2% 19.2% 35.6% 0.0% 100.0%

22 0 10 3

62.9% 0.0% 28.6% 8.6% 100.0%

17 7 15 2

41.5% 17.1% 36.6% 4.9% 100.0%

111 22 85 7

49.3% 9.8% 37.8% 3.1% 100.0%

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

Probation

Other

80% 68

70% 60

60%

54 49

50%

44 38

40%

33 28

30%

20% 10%

8 4

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

B Felonies (N=138)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=87)

Note: There were no A Felonies for this reporting period.

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=225)

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment

100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other 4

80%

40 30

44 67

60%

7 1

100

40%

20%

54 43

40 28

Brooklyn JO NonPart JO Part (N=73) (N=3)

Bronx JO NonPart JO Part (N=55) (N=18)

Manhattan JO NonPart JO Part (N=33) (N=2)

Queens JO NonPart JO Part (N=21) (N=20)

Citywide JO NonPart JO Part (N=182) (N=43)

-87-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

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

57.9%

63.0%

54.3%

70.7%

138

61.3%

23 0 19 1 43

53.5% 0.0% 44.2% 2.3% 100.0%

25 6 4 0 35

71.4% 17.1% 11.4% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 4 3 19

63.2% 0.0% 21.1% 15.8% 100.0%

9 3 5 0 17

52.9% 17.6% 29.4% 0.0% 100.0%

69 9 32 4 114

60.5% 7.9% 28.1% 3.5% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 6 4 0 11

9.1% 54.5% 36.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

5 3 4 0 12

41.7% 25.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 9 8 0 24

29.2% 37.5% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

42.1%

37.0%

45.7%

29.3%

38.7%

15 1 13 1 30

50.0% 3.3% 43.3% 3.3% 100.0%

7 2 11 0 20

35.0% 10.0% 55.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 6 0 14

57.1% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 2 4

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

30 3 32 3 68

44.1% 4.4% 47.1% 4.4% 100.0%

0 0 2 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 7 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 4 0 8

37.5% 12.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 1 13 0 19

26.3% 5.3% 68.4% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

225

100.0%

38 1 32 2 73

52.1% 1.4% 43.8% 2.7% 100.0%

32 8 15 0 55

58.2% 14.5% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%

20 0 10 3 33

60.6% 0.0% 30.3% 9.1% 100.0%

9 3 7 2 21

42.9% 14.3% 33.3% 9.5% 100.0%

99 12 64 7 182

54.4% 6.6% 35.2% 3.8% 100.0%

1 0 2 0 3

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 6 11 0 18

5.6% 33.3% 61.1% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 4 8 0 20

40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 10 21 0 43

27.9% 23.3% 48.8% 0.0% 100.0%

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

-88-

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Youthful Offender

Not Youthful Offender

100 80

84%

82%

79%

75%

81%

78%

60 40 25%

21%

18%

22%

16%

19%

0 JO Part

Non-JO Part

B Felonies (N=138)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=87)

Note: There were no A Felonies for this reporting period.

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=225)

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Youthful Offender 100%

Not Youthful Offender 5

6 16 33

80%

60% 100

40%

84 67

73 61

20%

Brooklyn JO Part

NonJO Part (N=73) (N=3)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=55) (N=18)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=33) (N=2)

Queens JO Part NonJO Part (N=21) (N=20)

Citywide JO Part NonJO Part (N=182) (N=43)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

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

57.9%

63.0%

54.3%

70.7%

138

61.3%

34 9 43

79.1% 20.9% 100.0%

24 11 35

68.6% 31.4% 100.0%

11 8 19

57.9% 42.1% 100.0%

16 1 17

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

85 29 114

74.6% 25.4% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10 1 11

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

0 0

9 3 12

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

19 5 24

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

42.1%

37.0%

45.7%

29.3%

38.7%

27 3 30

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

16 4 20

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

9 5 14

64.3% 35.7% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

56 12 68

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7 1 8

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

16 3 19

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

100.0%

225

100.0%

61 12 73

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

40 15 55

72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

20 13 33

60.6% 39.4% 100.0%

20 1 21

95.2% 4.8% 100.0%

141 41 182

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

2 1 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

17 1 18

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16 4 20

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

35 8 43

81.4% 18.6% 100.0%

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

-91-

Exhibit 6D Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Borough: 2008 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%

3% 18%

19%

32%

80%

38%

35%

24% 41%

60%

26%

17%

35%

31%

40% 18% 30%

25%

12%

20%

13% 23%

15%

14%

12%

0% Brooklyn (N=40)

Bronx

(N=47)

Manhattan (N=22)

Queens (N=24)

Citywide (N=133)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT INCARCERATIVE SENTENCES

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

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

0 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

0 0

Queens % 0

CITYWIDE %

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

60.0%

80.9%

54.5%

83.3%

70.7%

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

0 6 10 2 6 24

0.0% 25.0% 41.7% 8.3% 25.0% 100.0%

13 8 13 1 3 38

34.2% 21.1% 34.2% 2.6% 7.9% 100.0%

0 0 5 2 5 12

0.0% 0.0% 41.7% 16.7% 41.7% 100.0%

7 0 4 6 3 20

35.0% 0.0% 20.0% 30.0% 15.0% 100.0%

20 14 32 11 17 94

21.3% 14.9% 34.0% 11.7% 18.1% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

40.0%

19.1%

45.5%

16.7%

29.3%

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

1 8 4 3 0 16

6.3% 50.0% 25.0% 18.8% 0.0% 100.0%

2 4 1 1 1 9

22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0%

0 4 4 2 0 10

0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 0 0 0 4

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

5 18 9 6 1 39

12.8% 46.2% 23.1% 15.4% 2.6% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

133

100.0%

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

1 14 14 5 6 40

2.5% 35.0% 35.0% 12.5% 15.0% 100.0%

15 12 14 2 4 47

31.9% 25.5% 29.8% 4.3% 8.5% 100.0%

0 4 9 4 5 22

0.0% 18.2% 40.9% 18.2% 22.7% 100.0%

9 2 4 6 3 24

37.5% 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0%

25 32 41 17 18 133

18.8% 24.1% 30.8% 12.8% 13.5% 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: 2008 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Appearances

11 8

0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=142)

(N=79)

(N=221)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

500

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Days 409

400 300

340

335 240

266

288

324 246 246

281

325

308 296 287 240

200 100 0 A or B Felonies (N=142)

C or D Felonies (N=79)

All Charges (N=221)

-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 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

RELEASE STATUS 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

11.5

0 0 0 2

11.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

11.5

11.0

15.0

17.0

6.0

140

11.0

23 8 7 3

12.0 9.0 14.0 9.0

21 1 30 0

13.0 23.0 15.0 -

1 3 6 7

12.0 22.0 17.5 16.0

4 11 11 4

4.0 7.0 7.0 2.0

49 23 54 14

12.0 9.0 14.0 9.5

8.5

12.5

18.0

2.0

9.0

21 4 6 1

9.0 11.0 4.0 5.0

14 2 4 0

13.0 5.0 16.0 -

4 3 5 5

21.0 8.0 16.0 19.0

3 3 0 4

2.0 17.0 2.0

42 12 15 10

11.5 8.0 9.0 11.0

10.0

14.5

17.0

5.5

221

11.0

44 12 13 6

12.0 9.0 9.0 9.5

35 3 34 0

13.0 6.0 15.0 -

5 6 11 12

21.0 9.5 17.0 16.5

7 14 11 8

2.0 7.5 7.0 2.0

91 35 69 26

12.0 8.0 14.0 10.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes four 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 2008 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

352.0

0 0 0 2

352.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

352.0

288.0

443.5

464.0

114.0

140

284.0

23 8 7 3

381.0 233.5 246.0 199.0

21 1 30 0

287.0 792.0 509.0 -

1 3 6 7

399.0 1323.0 491.0 357.0

4 11 11 4

193.5 118.0 131.0 20.0

49 23 54 14

340.0 240.0 335.0 229.0

246.5

394.0

406.0

42.0

281.0

21 4 6 1

248.0 323.0 86.0 108.0

14 2 4 0

394.0 177.0 659.5 -

4 3 5 5

451.5 202.0 325.0 539.0

3 3 0 4

42.0 413.0 26.0

42 12 15 10

323.5 245.5 246.0 409.0

254.0

432.0

430.0

107.0

221

287.0

44 12 13 6

300.0 247.0 233.0 229.0

35 3 34 0

344.0 237.0 528.0 -

5 6 11 12

406.0 255.0 464.0 471.0

7 14 11 8

46.0 153.5 131.0 21.5

91 35 69 26

325.0 240.0 308.0 295.5

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 and 2008 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 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 313 released juveniles during the reporting period. This includes 242 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 71 who were released on bail. Fourteen released juveniles (4.5%) failed to appear as scheduled in 2008.18 As shown in Exhibit 7, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was higher for juveniles released on recognizance (5.8%) than for those released on bail since no juvenile who secured release on bail missed a scheduled appearance during the reporting period. Table 7 presents pretrial FTA by release status by borough for juveniles scheduled to appear at least once in Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court during the reporting period. Eight of the 14 juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in Brooklyn, four had been released in Manhattan, and two had been released in Queens. The FTA rate varied little across the boroughs. For juveniles who were released on recognizance, the rate ranged from 5.1 percent in Queens and 5.3 percent in Brooklyn to 7.4 percent in Manhattan. The FTA rate for all releases ranged from 2.7 percent in Queens to 4.8 percent in Brooklyn and 5.6 percent in Manhattan. Pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court in 2008 for a total of 389 released juveniles. This includes 285 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 104 who were released on bail. Seven percent of the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear at least once in Supreme Court in 2008 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 (8.8%) than for those released on bail (1.9%). Although more released juveniles missed at least one scheduled appearance in the Supreme Court in the Bronx (12) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in the Bronx (193), and the FTA rate in the Bronx (6.2%) was lower than in any other borough except Queens. The failure rate was 8.1 percent for the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court and 8.5 percent for the released juveniles scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court, while none of the 14 released juveniles missed a scheduled appearance prior to disposition in the upper court in Queens. The low volume of Queens cases with released juveniles scheduled for pre-disposition appearances in 18

The FTA rate presented here is a case-based, not an appearance-based, rate. The number of cases in which a warrant was issued for failure to appear during the reporting period was divided by the total number of cases with a released defendant and a scheduled appearance in the reporting period. 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-

Supreme Court reflects the high disposition rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court as a consequence of the frequent use of SCIs.

-99-

Exhibit 7 Failure to Appear Rates by Release Status 2008 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court

ROR

Bail Set and Made

10%

All Releases

9% 7% 6% 4% 2% 0%

0% Criminal Court (N=242)

(N=71)

(N=313)

Supreme Court (N=285)

(N=104)

(N=389)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2008 in Criminal and/or Supreme Court

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

149

89.8%

8 141

5.4% 94.6% 100.0%

0 0

10.2%

0 17

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

166

100.0%

8 158

4.8% 95.2% 100.0%

0 0

63.4%

169

9 69

11.5% 88.5% 100.0%

75.0%

52.0%

242

77.3%

4 50

7.4% 92.6% 100.0%

2 37

5.1% 94.9% 100.0%

14 228

5.8% 94.2% 100.0%

25.0%

48.0%

22.7%

0 18

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 36

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 71

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

313

100.0%

4 68

5.6% 94.4% 100.0%

2 73

2.7% 97.3% 100.0%

14 299

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

87.6%

61.0%

14.3%

285

73.3%

11 158

6.5% 93.5% 100.0%

5 31

13.9% 86.1% 100.0%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25 260

8.8% 91.2% 100.0%

36.6%

12.4%

39.0%

85.7%

104

26.7%

1 44

2.2% 97.8% 100.0%

1 23

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

0 23

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 12

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 102

1.9% 98.1% 100.0%

123

100.0%

193

100.0%

389

100.0%

10 113

8.1% 91.9% 100.0%

12 181

6.2% 93.8% 100.0%

5 54

8.5% 91.5% 100.0%

0 14

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

27 362

6.9% 93.1% 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.