Juveniles Report 09 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 2009

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2010

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 2009

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

David James Hauser Data Analyst

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2010

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2010 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2010. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2009. 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 2009 .................................................................... 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 2009 (the second half of fiscal year 2009 and the first half of fiscal year 2010). 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. The 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 provides released defendants notification of future court-appearance obligations, and performs research and evaluation functions regarding the effective operation of criminal justice processes. 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-

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. 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. 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 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-

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 2009 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 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 juvenile 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 juvenile 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 third 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 defendants who were sixteen years old or older at arrest but were of JO-eligible age at incident, 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 juvenile’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 55 arrests during this reporting period), Staten Island information is not included in the information presented after the Arrest Section. Thus, “citywide” totals exclude the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period. Numbers for the subsequent reporting periods will be reviewed, and the information may be included in later time periods. Staten Island information is available on request. The number of cases with female juvenile defendants is also too low for meaningful comparisons in tables past the Criminal Court arraignment decision point. Past Criminal Court arraignment then, full gender distributions are not displayed, nor are percentages calculated. These also are available on request. Finally, release status of juvenile defendants is relevant only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, we discuss defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the arraignment hearing; the juveniles 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-

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 juvenile 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. Thus most indictment numbers are associated with only one arrest. Of course, if an indictment charges more than one juvenile, the outcomes for each juvenile are tallied separately. As can be seen from Exhibit A, there were 1,808 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. Nearly three of every ten of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,279 cases (71%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, less 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 (74%). 5

In order to specify whether a case has left the system, the following categories were used. For the arrest decision point, a case has left the system if there was a declined prosecution or a referral to Family Court. For each of the court decision points, that is, arraignment or disposition in either Criminal Court or Supreme Court, the categories which are combined to reflect leaving the system are dismissals and transfers, either to Family Court, or to other courts. Thus the ones which are counted as retained are those which either remained pending in either court, went to trial, or pled guilty in Supreme Court.

-6-

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Not Applicable

275 (53%)

242 (47%)

1,808

1,279 (71%) 529 (29%)

CC Arraignments

5206

3 (<1%) 517 (99%)

CC Dispositions SC 1st Appearances

574

241 (42%) 333 (58%) data not available data not available

335

22 (7%)

Arrests

SC Dispositions 6

380

97 (26%)

313 (93%) 283 (74%)

108 (35%)

98 (35%)

200 (65%)

179 (65%)

The volume of arraignments is 520 and not 529 because the 9 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 308 cases, not 313, 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 277, not 283, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence. In six cases the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1,808 arrests for JO offenses in 2009. This is lower than the 2,223 arrests reported in 2008 and is lower than the 1,995 arrests reported for 2007. It is also less than the 1,887 arrests reported for 2006, but as explained earlier, the arrest-level data for 2007 and later reports are not comparable to the data reported for previous years because of changes in the way that 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 18 cases for juveniles who were sixteen years old or older at arrest in 2009 (56 in 2008 and 32 in 2007), cases which were processed as juvenile offender cases. In addition, every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JOeligible 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 slightly less than two thirds of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly eight of every ten juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 2009, three of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson). After first- and second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge in 2009 was possession of a weapon in the second degree, which accounted for seven percent of the arrests. This was followed by burglary in the second degree and possession of a weapon in the third degree, which accounted for five and three percent, respectively, of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. It is also important here to note that, as of November 1998, juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (265.03, subsection 4) or third degree (265.02), if it occurred on school grounds, and juveniles can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, each of the 131 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and each of the 61 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 2009. 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 63 percent in Queens to 65 and 66 percent in Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively, to 67 percent in the Bronx. Arrests for either of the weapon charges ranged from six percent in Queens to thirteen percent in Manhattan and the Bronx (Table 1a). The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained extremely small in each borough. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the volume is higher but remains small. Taken together, murder and attempted murder charges accounted for one percent of the JO arrests in 2009.

-8-

Exhibit 1B shows that over six of every ten juveniles 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 Manhattan (70%) were more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense than were those in Queens, Brooklyn, or the Bronx (66%, 64%, and 60%, respectively). There were 18 JO cases included in the 2009 report in which the juvenile was over sixteen at arrest and therefore would not have been selected for prior reporting periods. There was no JO arrest involving a thirteen-year-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% in 2009, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. The percentage of female arrestees ranged from sixteen percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx to seven percent in Staten Island. Female arrestees are typically underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. As shown in Table 1c, citywide, only eleven percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges in 2009 were female, compared to sixteen percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. However, there were borough differences. In Manhattan, female arrestees were actually overrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories (22% of those charged with B felonies, but only 13% of those charged with C or D felonies) whereas in all other boroughs, females were underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. In Staten Island and Queens, females were underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories by nine percentage points and, in Brooklyn, by six percentage points. Overall, JO arrestees were predominately male, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D and Table 1d indicate, 71 percent of the 2009 JO arrests were not docketed, about the same volume as the 70 percent in 2008 and the 72 percent not docketed in 2007.9 The lower proportion of JO arrests which prosecutors filed in adult court in 2007 through 2009 compared to 2003 through 2006 (33% to 38%) likely reflects the change in the way JO arrests were tallied in this reporting series. For 2007 through 2009, every arrest number associated with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible 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: 2009 JO Arrests

Other 18%

Murder 2 & Att. Murder 2 Robbery 1 1% 13%

Assault 1 2%

Robbery 2 65% (N=1808)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2009 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 16%

18%

80%

13%

17%

18%

22% 1%

60% 66% 63% 67%

66%

65% 65%

40%

20%

Brooklyn (N=645)

17%

14%

12%

22% 13%

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=481)

(N=326)

(N=301)

(N=55)

(N=1808)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.3%

0.2%

2 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

0 0 0

125

19.4%

18.7%

15.6%

22.3%

6 78 17 0 13 10 0 1 0 0

0.9% 12.1% 2.6% 0.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

4 68 10 0 4 3 0 1 0 0

0.8% 14.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1 30 11 0 3 4 0 1 1 0

0.3% 9.2% 3.4% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%

5 51 4 0 1 4 1 1 0 0

1.7% 16.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

518

80.3%

390

81.1%

275

84.4%

234

77.7%

78.2% 1460

80.8%

423 28 53 14

65.6% 4.3% 8.2% 2.2%

321 9 41 19

66.7% 1.9% 8.5% 4.0%

212 20 20 23

65.0% 6.1% 6.1% 7.1%

189 28 15 2

62.8% 9.3% 5.0% 0.7%

36 2 2 3

65.5% 1181 3.6% 87 3.6% 131 5.5% 61

65.3% 4.8% 7.2% 3.4%

645

100.0%

481

100.0%

326

100.0%

301

100.0%

100.0% 1808

100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

2 1 0

0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

21.8%

345

19.1%

0.0% 21.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16 239 42 0 21 21 1 4 1 0

0.9% 13.2% 2.3% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%

0 0 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: 2009 JO Arrests 14

100% 80% 64%

60%

36%

40%

49% 70%

66%

30%

34%

60%

64%

40% 20%

51% 36%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=645)

(N=481)

(N=326)

(N=301)

(N=55)

(N=1808)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2009 JO Arrests

100%

Males

Females

16%

14%

15%

84%

86%

85%

93%

15%

80% 60% 40%

85%

20% 0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=645)

(N=481)

(N=326)

(N=301)

(N=55)

(N=1808)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.3%

0.2%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.2%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

125

19.4%

18.7%

15.6%

22.3%

0 48 77

0.0% 38.4% 61.6% 100.0%

0 40 50

0.0% 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

0 17 34

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 17 50

0.0% 25.4% 74.6% 100.0%

0 6 6

21.8%

345

19.1%

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 128 217

0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

518

80.3%

390

81.1%

275

84.4%

234

77.7%

78.2%

1460

80.8%

0 183 335

0.0% 35.3% 64.7% 100.0%

0 154 236

0.0% 39.5% 60.5% 100.0%

0 81 194

0.0% 29.5% 70.5% 100.0%

0 85 149

0.0% 36.3% 63.7% 100.0%

0 22 21

0.0% 51.2% 48.8% 100.0%

0 525 935

0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 100.0%

645

100.0%

481

100.0%

326

100.0%

301

100.0%

1808

100.0%

0 231 414

0.0% 35.8% 64.2% 100.0%

0 194 287

0.0% 40.3% 59.7% 100.0%

0 98 228

0.0% 30.1% 69.9% 100.0%

0 102 199

0.0% 33.9% 66.1% 100.0%

0 28 27

0.0% 50.9% 49.1% 100.0%

0 653 1155

0.0% 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0 0 0

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

Staten Island N % 0.0%

CITYWIDE %

0.3%

0.2%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

125

19.4%

18.7%

15.6%

22.3%

21.8%

345

19.1%

111 14

88.8% 11.2% 100.0%

81 9

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

40 11

78.4% 21.6% 100.0%

62 5

92.5% 7.5% 100.0%

12 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

306 39

88.7% 11.3% 100.0%

518

80.3%

390

81.1%

275

84.4%

234

77.7%

78.2% 1460

80.8%

430 88

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

323 67

82.8% 17.2% 100.0%

240 35

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

194 40

82.9% 17.1% 100.0%

39 4

90.7% 1226 9.3% 234 100.0%

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

645

100.0%

481

100.0%

326

100.0%

301

100.0%

100.0% 1808

100.0%

543 102

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

404 77

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

280 46

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

256 45

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

51 4

92.7% 1534 7.3% 274 100.0%

84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

0 0

0.2%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2009 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 16% 29%

29%

31%

80%

60%

84%

40% 71%

71%

69%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=645)

(N=481)

Manhattan (N=326)

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=301)

(N=55)

(N=1808)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 JO Arrests

DOCKET STATUS A FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal B FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.3%

0.2%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

0 0

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

125

19.4%

18.7%

15.6%

22.3%

21.8%

345

19.1%

31 94

24.8% 75.2% 100.0%

33 57

36.7% 63.3% 100.0%

12 39

23.5% 76.5% 100.0%

11 56

16.4% 83.6% 100.0%

5 7

41.7% 58.3% 100.0%

92 253

26.7% 73.3% 100.0%

518

80.3%

390

81.1%

275

84.4%

234

77.7%

78.2% 1460

80.8%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

427 91

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

307 83

78.7% 21.3% 100.0%

213 62

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

198 36

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

41 2

95.3% 1186 4.7% 274 100.0%

81.2% 18.8% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

645

100.0%

481

100.0%

326

100.0%

301

100.0%

100.0% 1808

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

458 187

71.0% 29.0% 100.0%

341 140

70.9% 29.1% 100.0%

225 101

69.0% 31.0% 100.0%

209 92

69.4% 30.6% 100.0%

46 9

83.6% 1279 16.4% 529 100.0%

70.7% 29.3% 100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 52010 cases arraigned on JO offenses during this reporting period, much less than in 2008 (660) but comparable to the volume in 2007 (541). The volume of arraignments with juvenile defendants was substantially higher prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The 21 percent citywide decrease in arraignment volume in the current reporting period is not equally visible in each borough. The decrease was most marked in Brooklyn, where 188 juveniles were arraigned in 2009 compared to 256 in 2008 (a 26% decrease in volume), and was least felt in Queens, where 92 juveniles were arraigned in 2009 compared to 97 in 2008 (a 5% decrease in volume). Brooklyn JO arraignments accounted for 36 percent of JO arraignments citywide. The Bronx accounted for more than a quarter of the citywide volume of juveniles arraigned in adult court while Manhattan accounted for slightly less than a fifth and Queens accounted for barely 18 percent of the citywide volume. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that over 84 percent of JO cases in adult court had a robbery charge at arraignment. The combined proportion of robbery charges was slightly more than the proportion of the JO arrest population that showed a robbery arrest charge, with first-degree robbery charges especially more prevalent among the arraignment charges (38%, compared to 13% at arrest) and with second-degree robbery charges more common among the arrest charges (65%, compared to 46% at arraignment). However, the proportion of first-degree robbery charges at arraignment decreased from 44 percent in 2007 to 37 and 38 percent in 2008 and 2009, respectively, while the proportion of second-degree robbery charges at arraignment increased comparably (from 41% in 2007 to 44% in 2008 and to 46% in 2009). 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, just over 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 2009, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 27 percent in Manhattan to 40 percent in both Queens and the Bronx and up to 42 percent in Brooklyn. 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 seconddegree robbery charges. In 2009 however, first- and second-degree robbery accounted for only 77 percent of arraignment charges in Manhattan JO cases but accounted for 91 to 84 percent of 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-

arraignment charges in JO cases in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for the boroughs.11 There were three dismissals at Criminal Court arraignment (data not displayed) in this reporting period. Exhibit 2B indicates that 50 percent of juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2009, slightly higher than the 49 percent ROR rate in 2008 but lower than the 53 percent ROR rate in 2007. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not equally apparent in each borough. The rate of ROR increased in the Bronx (up to 67% from 61%) and Brooklyn (up to 54% from 52%) and decreased in Queens (down to 30% from 31%) and Manhattan (down to 37% from 40%). Typically, if defendants are not released on recognizance, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only fifteen juveniles (3%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2009, with some borough differences: six percent of juveniles made bail at arraignment in Brooklyn compared to no juveniles in Queens. The juveniles in JO arraignments in Queens were again most likely to be detained (70%), either on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. Sixty-one percent of the juveniles were detained in JO arraignments in Manhattan, compared to 40 percent in Brooklyn and only 32 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 arraignment charges were more likely to be detained. In 2009, the proportion released on recognizance in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 41 percent (the same as last year) compared to 60 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (nearly the same as last year). Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment were large and are apparent even within chargeseverity category. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2009, the proportion released on recognizance was the highest in the Bronx (59%), followed by Brooklyn (43%), and lowest in Queens (25%) and Manhattan (22%). The borough differences were even wider at the C- and Dfelony level, ranging from an ROR rate of only 36 percent in Queens to 75 percent in the Bronx. Exhibit 2C shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here there are large differences: 74 percent of females were released on recognizance compared to 46 percent of males, a fourteen percentage point increase for females and a one percentage point decrease for males from 2008 to 2009. 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 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. Data for JO cases in Staten Island is available upon request.

-19-

for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 2009, eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, more than in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008, 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 86 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, comparable to the 85 percent recommended in 2008. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the juvenile 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 2009, the murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs and one juvenile was excluded from recommendation for ROR because of an outstanding bench warrant. If the juveniles in these categories are also subtracted from the calculation base, then nearly nine of every ten of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2009 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, about the same as in 2008. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2009 were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (54%, compared to 47%). This diverges from 2007 and 2008 when juveniles who were recommended for ROR were able to secure release on recognizance about as often as juveniles who were not recommended (53% vs. 54% in 2008, 55% vs. 53% in 2007). The recent change lies in the decreasing likelihood of securing release on recognizance for those who were not recommended (47% in 2009, compared to 54% in 2008 and 53% in 2007). The likelihood of release on recognizance for juveniles who were recommended for ROR has remained around 54 percent from 2007 to 2009.

-20-

-21Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2009 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 4%

Robbery 1 38%

Robbery 2 46%

Assault 1 5%

(N=520)

Other 6%

Murder 2 <1%

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2009 JO Arraignments Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1 1% 4%

6% 4%

Robbery 1 Other 6%

44%

46%

13%

80% 51%

43%

60% 50%

40%

42% 40%

40%

38%

20% 27%

5% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=188)

(N=140)

(N=100)

(N=92)

(N=520)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2009 JO Arraignments

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

0.5%

1 0 0

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

105

55.9%

48.6%

41.0%

10 79 7 0 6 1 0 2 0 0

5.3% 42.0% 3.7% 0.0% 3.2% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

6 56 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3% 40.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 27 9 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

1.0% 27.0% 9.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0%

4 37 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.2%

1 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

52.2%

262

50.4%

4.3% 40.2% 5.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

21 199 27 0 9 1 0 4 1 0

4.0% 38.3% 5.2% 0.0% 1.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0%

0 0 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

43.6%

51.4%

59.0%

47.8%

257

49.4%

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

80 0 2 0

42.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

71 0 1 0

50.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

50 0 9 0

50.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0%

40 0 4 0

43.5% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0%

241 0 16 0

46.3% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

188

100.0%

140

100.0%

100

100.0%

520

100.0%

TOTAL

-24Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2009 JO Arraignments

ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made 3%

Remand 1%

31%

80%

39% 46% 1%

60%

58% 69%

6% 3%

40%

2% 67% 54%

50%

20%

37% 30%

0% Brooklyn (N=188)

Bronx (N=140)

Manhattan (N=99)

Queens (N=90)

Citywide (N=517)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

105

55.9%

48.6%

40.4%

53.3%

261

50.5%

45 8 52 0

42.9% 7.6% 49.5% 0.0% 100.0%

40 0 27 1

58.8% 0.0% 39.7% 1.5% 100.0%

9 0 29 2

22.5% 0.0% 72.5% 5.0% 100.0%

12 0 35 1

25.0% 0.0% 72.9% 2.1% 100.0%

106 8 143 4

40.6% 3.1% 54.8% 1.5% 100.0%

43.6%

51.4%

59.6%

46.7%

255

49.3%

57 3 22 0

69.5% 3.7% 26.8% 0.0% 100.0%

54 2 16 0

75.0% 2.8% 22.2% 0.0% 100.0%

28 2 28 1

47.5% 3.4% 47.5% 1.7% 100.0%

15 0 27 0

35.7% 0.0% 64.3% 0.0% 100.0%

154 7 93 1

60.4% 2.7% 36.5% 0.4% 100.0%

188

100.0%

140

100.0%

517

100.0%

102 11 74 1

54.3% 5.9% 39.4% 0.5% 100.0%

94 2 43 1

67.1% 1.4% 30.7% 0.7% 100.0%

37 2 57 3

37.4% 2.0% 57.6% 3.0% 100.0%

27 0 62 1

30.0% 0.0% 68.9% 1.1% 100.0%

260 15 236 6

50.3% 2.9% 45.6% 1.2% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0 0 0 0

0.2%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 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.

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2009 JO Arraignments

Remand 1%

ROR 46%

Bail Set/Not Made 50%

Bail Set/Made 2%

Males (N=444) Bail Set/Not Made 19%

Bail Set/Made 6%

Remand 1%

ROR 74%

Females (N=73)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2009 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 %

158

84.0%

119

85.0%

87.9%

88.9%

444

85.9%

79 8 70 1

50.0% 5.1% 44.3% 0.6% 100.0%

78 1 39 1

65.5% 0.8% 32.8% 0.8% 100.0%

29 2 54 2

33.3% 2.3% 62.1% 2.3% 100.0%

20 0 59 1

25.0% 0.0% 73.8% 1.3% 100.0%

206 11 222 5

46.4% 2.5% 50.0% 1.1% 100.0%

16.0%

15.0%

12.1%

11.1%

14.1%

23 3 4 0

76.7% 10.0% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

16 1 4 0

76.2% 4.8% 19.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 3 1

66.7% 0.0% 25.0% 8.3% 100.0%

7 0 3 0

70.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

54 4 14 1

74.0% 5.5% 19.2% 1.4% 100.0%

188

100.0%

140

100.0%

517

100.0%

102 11 74 1

54.3% 5.9% 39.4% 0.5% 100.0%

94 2 43 1

67.1% 1.4% 30.7% 0.7% 100.0%

37 2 57 3

37.4% 2.0% 57.6% 3.0% 100.0%

27 0 62 1

30.0% 0.0% 68.9% 1.1% 100.0%

260 15 236 6

50.3% 2.9% 45.6% 1.2% 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: 2009 JO Arraignments J5--Recommended J7a--Bench Warrant Recommendation Not Available 100%

2% 4% 1% 5%

4% 2% 11%

J6--Not Recommended J7c--Murder Charge

18% 6% 1%

80%

10%

19%

60%

89%

40%

83% 79%

80%

62%

20%

Brooklyn (N=188)

Bronx (N=140)

Manhattan (N=99)

Queens (N=90)

Citywide (N=517)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2009 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

167

88.8%

116

82.9%

61.6%

78.9%

415

80.3%

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

94 10 63 0

56.3% 6.0% 37.7% 0.0% 100.0%

80 2 34 0

69.0% 1.7% 29.3% 0.0% 100.0%

24 0 35 2

39.3% 0.0% 57.4% 3.3% 100.0%

27 0 44 0

38.0% 0.0% 62.0% 0.0% 100.0%

225 12 176 2

54.2% 2.9% 42.4% 0.5% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

4.8%

11.4%

19.2%

5.6%

9.5%

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

5 0 4 0

55.6% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 5 0

68.8% 0.0% 31.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 10 1

36.8% 5.3% 52.6% 5.3% 100.0%

0 0 4 1

0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

23 1 23 2

46.9% 2.0% 46.9% 4.1% 100.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.2%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4.3%

2.1%

1.0%

5.6%

3.3%

2 0 5 1

25.0% 0.0% 62.5% 12.5% 100.0%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 13 2

11.8% 0.0% 76.5% 11.8% 100.0%

1.6%

3.6%

18.2%

10.0%

6.8%

1 1 1 0

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 2 0

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 11 0

33.3% 5.6% 61.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 9 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 2 23 0

28.6% 5.7% 65.7% 0.0% 100.0%

188

100.0%

140

100.0%

517

100.0%

102 11 74 1

54.3% 5.9% 39.4% 0.5% 100.0%

94 2 43 1

67.1% 1.4% 30.7% 0.7% 100.0%

37 2 57 3

37.4% 2.0% 57.6% 3.0% 100.0%

27 0 62 1

30.0% 0.0% 68.9% 1.1% 100.0%

260 15 236 6

50.3% 2.9% 45.6% 1.2% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of 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.

-30-

-31-

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 574 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, less than the 642 dockets disposed in 2008, but comparable to the 546 dockets disposed in 2007. The citywide decrease was felt in three of the four largest boroughs: there were twentyone percent fewer cases disposed in the Bronx, seventeen percent fewer cases disposed in Brooklyn, and nine percent fewer cases disposed in Manhattan. Dispositions in Queens rose by 24 cases (a 28% increase in case volume). The citywide distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the citywide distribution of charges at arraignment; 84 percent of disposition charges were a robbery charge (either in the first- or second-degree), four percent were attempted murder in the second degree, five percent were assault in the first degree, and the remaining six percent were other JO charges. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 58 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, a slight decrease from the rates of 2008 through 2006 (63%, 61%, 65%) but higher than the rates of 2005 through 2002 (56%, 49%, 42%, 37%). Again, there were wide borough differences in the rate of transfer to the upper court and in the size of the change in the rate of transfer compared to 2008. In 2009, the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was second highest in Queens (58%, up from 48% in 2008), followed by Manhattan (50%, down from 54% in 2008) and Brooklyn (35%, down from 48% in 2008). All cases in the Bronx were transferred to the Supreme Court in 2009, as they were in 2008 and 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 2009 through 2007, only three were transferred in 2006, and no cases were transferred in 2005, compared to 22 percent in 2004. No Bronx JO cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court in 2006 through 2009, and only two were dismissed in 2005, compared to seventeen percent in 2004. The citywide decrease in the rate of transfer to Supreme Court accompanied a small increase in the rate of transfer to Family Court and a small increase in the rate of dismissal in Criminal Court; however, again there were borough differences. There were no changes in the Bronx, and a slight increase in the rate of dismissal in Manhattan (49%, up from 46% in 2008). In Queens, there was a drop in both the rates of transfer to Family Court (23%, down from 32% in 2008) and dismissal (18%, down from 20% in 2008) while in Brooklyn, there was an increase in both the rates of transfer to Family Court (31%, up from 23% in 2008) and dismissal (35%, up from 30% in 2008). Manhattan had the highest rate of dismissal (49%), and Brooklyn had the highest rate of transfer to Family Court (31%). Of course, dismissal of the docket in Criminal 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-

docket in Criminal Court did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. However, the wide range of dispositions across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals13 and may also suggest that there have been changes in those policies. Charge severity relates to the likelihood that 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 higher for A- or Bfelony dockets (62%) than for C- or D-felony dockets (54%). This difference (an 8 percentage point advantage for A- or B-felony dockets) was not as pronounced as it was in 2008 (a 21 percentage point advantage for A- or B-felony dockets). The citywide decrease in the rate of transfer to Supreme Court in 2009 compared to 2008 is due to a decrease in rate of transfer for the A- or B- felony category (62%, compared to 73% in 2008). That decrease is due to the effects of two boroughs: Brooklyn and the Bronx. In Brooklyn, only 42 percent of cases with B felonies were transferred to the upper court (compared to 63% in 2008), decreasing the overall rate of transfer for more severe charges in that borough in 2009. Furthermore, since the Bronx transfers every case to the Supreme Court as per the Bronx court restructuring, whichever charge-severity category has the most cases from that borough has an elevated rate of transfer to the upper court. In 2008, 117 cases in the Bronx were charged with A or B felonies (66%), compared to only 68 cases in 2009 (49%). This also led to the decrease in the rate of transfer to Supreme Court for more severe charges in 2009. Release status at the conclusion of lower court processing for cases transferred either to Family or Supreme Court is not presented in this report in light of considerations of data quality and availability. Available data sources do not consistently note the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s release status, perhaps in part because the defendant is not always present in court when the Grand Jury outcomes are recorded. Finally, Exhibits 3C and 3D present the median number of appearances and days, respectively, between Criminal Court arraignment and disposition by charge-severity category. Tables 3c and 3d present the same information by borough. The median is the midpoint of the distribution of the number of appearances or days elapsed. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court in 2009 was three, up from two in 2008 and 2007. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court for A- or B-felony cases, the largest charge category, was three, up from two in 2008. The median number of appearances for cases where bail was set and not made at arraignment, the second largest release status category, was also three, up from two in 2008. Lastly, the median number of appearances in both Brooklyn and Manhattan was three, up from two in both in 2008. 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. The median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court increased sharply, from 16 days in 2008 to 28 days in 2009, comparable to the median number of days in 13 Referrals can only occur after the adult court concludes its case with a dismissal. Removals represent the transferring of active cases.

-33-

number of days in 2007 (31 days). The median number of days increased for cases with A- or Bfelony severity disposition charges, the largest charge severity group (32 days in 2009, compared to 5 days in 2008); it stayed nearly the same for cases with C- or D-felony severity disposition charges (28 days in 2009, compared to 26 days in 2008). This change reflects the difference in the distribution of Bronx cases between those charge severity groups in 2008 and 2009. Cases disposed in the Bronx Criminal Court all have zero days to disposition since they are all transferred to the Supreme Court at Criminal Court arraignment. In 2008, 34 percent of all cases with A- or B-felony severity disposition charges were disposed in the Bronx, compared to only 23 percent in 2009. Since more cases in the A- or B-felony charge severity group in 2008 were Bronx cases with zero days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court, the median for that charge severity group was lower in 2008 relative to 2009. The citywide median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court increased for the three largest arraignment release status groups in 2009; juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment had a median of forty days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court (30 in 2008), juveniles for whom bail was set and made had a median of fifty (22 in 2008), and juveniles for whom bail was set and not made had a median of fourteen (5 in 2008). This increase from 2008 to 2009 in the median number of days in these release status groups is due to a decrease in the number of cases disposed in the Bronx in those release status groups in 2009. In 2009, Bronx cases made up thirty-two percent of juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment (compared to 34% in 2008), ten percent of juveniles for whom bail was set and made at arraignment (compared to 23% in 2008), and sixteen percent of juveniles for whom bail was set and not made (compared to 21% in 2008). Fewer Bronx cases in those release status groups in 2009 means fewer cases with zero days, which raises the citywide median number of days for those release status categories in 2009. The standard effect of released versus detained juveniles on length of case pertains to 2009; juveniles who were released at arraignment (either through ROR or bail-making) had longer median numbers of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court than juveniles not released at arraignment (either through remand or not making bail). Excluding JO cases disposed in the Bronx, there were more juveniles released at arraignment in 2009 than in 2008 (data not shown). In 2009, 48 percent of all juveniles in non-Bronx JO cases were either released on recognizance or made bail at arraignment. In 2008, that figure was only 34 percent. This is a reason for the longer citywide median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court in 2009; more juveniles were released in 2009, with longer time between scheduled court appearances and resulting in longer time to disposition in Criminal Court.

-34-

-35-

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough: 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1 1% 4%

Robbery 1 Other 8%

13%

6% 5%

80% 51%

42%

44%

46%

60% 51%

40%

43% 37%

40%

38%

20% 26%

5% 1%

Brooklyn (N=214)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=140)

(N=112)

(N=108)

(N=574)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

0.5%

1 0 0

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

122

57.0%

48.6%

41.1%

11 92 9 0 6 1 0 3 0 0

5.1% 43.0% 4.2% 0.0% 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

6 56 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3% 40.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 29 10 0 3 0 0 2 1 0

0.9% 25.9% 8.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0%

7 40 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.2%

1 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

50.0%

290

50.5%

6.5% 37.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

25 217 29 0 10 2 0 6 1 0

4.4% 37.8% 5.1% 0.0% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0%

0 0 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

42.5%

51.4%

58.9%

50.0%

283

49.3%

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

89 0 2 0

41.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

71 0 1 0

50.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

57 0 9 0

50.9% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0%

48 0 6 0

44.4% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0%

265 0 18 0

46.2% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

214

100.0%

140

100.0%

112

100.0%

108

100.0%

574

100.0%

TOTAL

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Dismissals Brooklyn (N=214)

Transfers to Supreme Court

Transfers to Family Court

35%

31%

35%

Bronx (N=140)

100%

Manhattan (N=112)

49%

Queens (N=108)

23%

Citywide (N=574)

16%

100%

75%

50%

18%

58%

26%

25%

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

58%

25%

50%

75%

Percentage Disposed in Supreme Court

100%

-38-

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

80 62% 60

58%

54%

40 28%

24%

23%

26% 16%

10%

A or B Felonies (N=291)

C or D Felonies (N=283)

All Charges (N=574)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

A FELONIES:

0.5%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

B FELONIES:

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

CITYWIDE N %

0.0%

0 0 0

0.2%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

122

57.0%

48.6%

41.1%

50.0%

290

50.5%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

54 17 51

44.3% 13.9% 41.8% 100.0%

0 0 68

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20 1 25

43.5% 2.2% 54.3% 100.0%

8 10 36

14.8% 18.5% 66.7% 100.0%

82 28 180

28.3% 9.7% 62.1% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

42.5%

51.4%

58.9%

50.0%

283

49.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

20 49 22

22.0% 53.8% 24.2% 100.0%

0 0 72

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35 0 31

53.0% 0.0% 47.0% 100.0%

12 15 27

22.2% 27.8% 50.0% 100.0%

67 64 152

23.7% 22.6% 53.7% 100.0%

214

100.0%

140

100.0%

112

100.0%

108

100.0%

574

100.0%

74 66 74

34.6% 30.8% 34.6% 100.0%

0 0 140

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

55 1 56

49.1% 0.9% 50.0% 100.0%

20 25 63

18.5% 23.1% 58.3% 100.0%

149 92 333

26.0% 16.0% 58.0% 100.0%

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

-40-

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 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=290)

C or D Felonies (N=281)

All Charges (N=571)

-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 2009 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

3.0

0 0 0 1

3.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

3.0

122

3.0

1.0

3.0

6.0

289

3.0

55 10 57 0

4.0 3.0 3.0 -

40 0 27 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

13 0 30 2

3.0 3.0 2.0

10 0 43 1

6.0 6.0 2.0

118 10 157 4

3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

4.5

281

2.0

66 3 22 0

3.0 3.0 2.0 -

54 2 16 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

32 4 29 1

3.0 3.5 2.0 3.0

15 1 36 0

4.0 4.0 5.0 -

167 10 103 1

2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

214

3.0

140

1.0

111

3.0

106

5.0

571

3.0

121 13 79 1

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

94 2 43 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

45 4 59 3

3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0

25 1 79 1

5.0 4.0 6.0 2.0

285 20 260 6

2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

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

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR 100

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Days

75 50

47 32

40 28

28 14

A or B Felonies (N=290)

C or D Felonies (N=281)

All Charges (N=571)

-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 2009 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

5.0

0 0 0 1

5.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

5.0

122

55.5

0.0

18.0

107.0

289

33.0

55 10 57 0

182.0 91.0 14.0 -

40 0 27 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13 0 30 2

207.0 6.0 5.0

10 0 43 1

163.5 104.0 4.0

118 10 157 4

47.0 91.0 22.0 4.5

40.0

0.0

101.0

91.5

281

28.0

66 3 22 0

52.0 40.0 4.0 -

54 2 16 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

32 4 29 1

160.0 195.0 5.0 92.0

15 1 36 0

96.0 95.0 75.0 -

167 10 103 1

33.0 40.0 5.0 92.0

214

43.0

140

0.0

111

69.0

106

96.0

571

28.0

121 13 79 1

65.0 40.0 5.0 5.0

94 2 43 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

45 4 59 3

190.0 195.0 5.0 5.0

25 1 79 1

106.0 95.0 92.0 4.0

285 20 260 6

40.0 49.5 14.0 5.0

-44-

-45-

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases that first appeared in Supreme Court in 2009 (335) was much smaller than in 2008 (429), but comparable to 2007 (320). The decrease in the citywide case volume reflects the decreases in Brooklyn (74 cases in 2009, down from 142 in 2008), the Bronx (146 cases in 2009, down from 175 in 2008), and Manhattan (54 cases in 2009, down from 70 in 2008), while the volume of cases in Queens increased (61 cases in 2009, up from 42 in 2008). It is important to remember that the number of cases with a first appearance in Supreme Court from 2007 through 2009 are not comparable to the numbers 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, since the 2007 report, each case that is arraigned in Criminal Court is 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, compared to 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 eight of every ten JO cases entering the upper court in 2009, more than they in the previous reporting period (76%). Firstdegree robbery charges made up 13 percent of all juvenile arrests during 2009 but comprised 41 percent of cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges together accounted for under a fifth of the JO arrests but nearly six of every ten cases that reached the 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 JO cases that reached Supreme Court than were less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, few defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2009 pled guilty (13%) and 30 percent of juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. Few cases (15) were transferred to the Family Court, and fewer cases (7) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (49%) 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 prearraignment 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 at the first appearance (69%), compared to only one case in Brooklyn and no cases in the Bronx or Manhattan. This finding reflects borough differences in plea policies and in the use of the 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-

Superior Court Information (SCI).15 The proportion of juveniles who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 72 percent in Brooklyn, to 68 percent in Manhattan, and 18 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 (84%) were continued at the first appearance compared to thirty percent of Manhattan JO cases, twenty-three percent of those in Brooklyn, and thirteen percent of those in Queens. Ten percent (14 cases) of the Bronx JO cases and one JO case in Brooklyn were transferred to the Family Court. Exhibit 4C presents the release statuses at the first appearance in Supreme Court for JO cases in which release status was applicable. This included cases continued for disposition and cases continued for sentence but excluded cases that were dismissed, transferred to the Family Court, and those in which a bench warrant was ordered. Juveniles were released on their own recognizance or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in 65 percent of cases. Nearly three of every ten were held on bail and seven percent were remanded 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 62 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 70 percent of 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 (46%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (54%). 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 (70%), followed by Brooklyn (45%), Queens (36%), and Manhattan (21%). However, juveniles in the Bronx were far less likely to secure release on bail (4%) than those in any other borough (33% in Queens, 24% in Brooklyn, and 13% 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 and Queens (69%) and the Bronx (74%) but lower in Manhattan (34%). Exhibit 4D presents the median number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court for each case in the upper court, for each charge class, separately by release status. In 2009, citywide, it took a median of fourteen days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), compared to sixteen days in 2008 and fourteen days in 2007. The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity (14 days for Bfelony cases and 12 days for C- or D-felony cases). Cases in which the juvenile was released on recognizance (23 days) or bail (14 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 (7 days) or remanded with no bail set (3 days).

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-

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 (30 days, up from 29 days), followed by Manhattan (8 days, down from 15 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 decreased from ten days to zero days in 2009 (comparable to 2007). 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: 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 5%

Robbery 1 41% Robbery 2 40%

Assault 1 10%

(N=335)

Murder 2 Other <1% 4%

-50-

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

11%

Robbery 1 Other 3% 8%

17%

4% 10%

80% 31%

13% 36% 43%

40%

60%

46%

40% 51% 49% 40%

41%

20% 20% 8% 5%

Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=74)

(N=146)

Manhattan (N=54)

Queens

Citywide

(N=61)

(N=335)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1.4%

1 0 0

1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

67.6%

56.2%

44.4%

6 38 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

8.1% 51.4% 5.4% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7 58 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

4.8% 39.7% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 11 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

3.7% 20.4% 13.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%

2 30 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

31.1%

43.8%

55.6%

23 0 0 0 0

31.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

63 0 1 0 0

43.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

25 0 5 0 0

46.3% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0%

146

100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.3%

1 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

62.3%

194

57.9%

3.3% 49.2% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

17 137 32 0 4 2 0 2 0 0

5.1% 40.9% 9.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

37.7%

140

41.8%

22 0 1 0 0

36.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

133 0 7 0 0

39.7% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0%

335

100.0%

0 0 0

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Pled Guilty Dismissed 100%

Pled Not Guilty Continued 3%

Transfer to Family Court Bench Warrant 1%

13%

23% 30%

80%

18% 49%

60%

84%

2% 4% 72%

40%

69%

68%

30%

20% 5% 13%

10% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=74)

(N=146)

(N=54)

(N=51)

(N=335)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

A FELONIES:

1.4%

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

0 0 1 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

B FELONIES:

67.6%

56.2%

44.4%

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

0 1 11 37 1 0

0.0% 2.0% 22.0% 74.0% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 6 73 0 0 1

2.4% 7.3% 89.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 100.0%

0 0 10 14 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 41.7% 58.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

31.1%

43.8%

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

0 0 5 16 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 69.6% 0.0% 8.7% 100.0%

5 8 50 0 0 1

7.8% 12.5% 78.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 100.0%

0 0 6 23 0 1

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

146

100.0%

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

0 1 17 53 1 2

0.0% 1.4% 23.0% 71.6% 1.4% 2.7% 100.0%

7 14 123 0 0 2

4.8% 9.6% 84.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 100.0%

0.0%

0.3%

0 0 1 0 0 0

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

62.3%

194

57.9%

0 0 7 9 22 0

0.0% 0.0% 18.4% 23.7% 57.9% 0.0% 100.0%

2 7 101 60 23 1

1.0% 3.6% 52.1% 30.9% 11.9% 0.5% 100.0%

55.6%

37.7%

140

41.8%

0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 76.7% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0%

0 0 1 2 20 0

0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 8.7% 87.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 8 62 41 20 4

3.6% 5.7% 44.3% 29.3% 14.3% 2.9% 100.0%

100.0%

335

100.0%

0 0 16 37 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 68.5% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%

0 0 8 11 42 0

0.0% 0.0% 13.1% 18.0% 68.9% 0.0% 100.0%

7 15 164 101 43 5

2.1% 4.5% 49.0% 30.1% 12.8% 1.5% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0 0 0 0 0 0

-54Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

10%

Bail Set and Not Made 6%

7% 18%

25%

80%

Remand

21%

28% 13% 4% 60%

60%

16%

24% 33%

40% 70% 13%

20%

49%

45% 36% 21%

0% Brooklyn (N=71)

Bronx (N=123)

Manhattan (N=53)

Queens (N=61)

Citywide (N=308)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2009 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 % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1.4%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

69.0%

59.3%

45.3%

62.3%

184

59.7%

21 11 13 4

42.9% 22.4% 26.5% 8.2% 100.0%

48 4 20 1

65.8% 5.5% 27.4% 1.4% 100.0%

2 5 14 3

8.3% 20.8% 58.3% 12.5% 100.0%

13 10 7 8

34.2% 26.3% 18.4% 21.1% 100.0%

84 30 54 16

45.7% 16.3% 29.3% 8.7% 100.0%

29.6%

40.7%

54.7%

37.7%

123

39.9%

11 6 2 2

52.4% 28.6% 9.5% 9.5% 100.0%

38 1 11 0

76.0% 2.0% 22.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 2 18 0

31.0% 6.9% 62.1% 0.0% 100.0%

9 10 1 3

39.1% 43.5% 4.3% 13.0% 100.0%

67 19 32 5

54.5% 15.4% 26.0% 4.1% 100.0%

100.0%

123

100.0%

308

100.0%

32 17 15 7

45.1% 23.9% 21.1% 9.9% 100.0%

86 5 31 1

69.9% 4.1% 25.2% 0.8% 100.0%

11 7 32 3

20.8% 13.2% 60.4% 5.7% 100.0%

22 20 8 11

36.1% 32.8% 13.1% 18.0% 100.0%

151 49 86 22

49.0% 15.9% 27.9% 7.1% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0 0 0 0

0.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

-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: 2009 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR 30

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Median Number of Days 24

22 20

Remand

10 7 4

6 4

3 0

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=185)

(N=123)

(N=308)

-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 2009 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

53.0

0 0 0 1

53.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

53.0

31.0

5.0

8.0

0.0

184

14.0

21 11 13 4

28.0 35.0 50.0 44.5

48 4 20 1

25.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

2 5 14 3

7.5 21.0 7.5 9.0

13 10 7 8

0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0

84 30 54 16

24.0 20.5 7.0 3.0

26.0

12.5

8.0

0.0

123

12.0

11 6 2 2

24.0 26.5 48.5 44.0

38 1 11 0

24.0 4.0 5.0 -

9 2 18 0

22.0 8.0 7.0 -

9 10 1 3

0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0

67 19 32 5

22.0 4.0 6.0 0.0

30.0

123

5.0

8.0

0.0

308

13.5

32 17 15 7

26.5 34.0 50.0 47.0

86 5 31 1

25.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

11 7 32 3

21.0 17.0 7.0 9.0

22 20 8 11

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

151 49 86 22

23.0 14.0 7.0 3.0

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

-58-

-59-

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 380 cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 2009, more than the 315 cases disposed in 2008. The 2007 through 2009 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 similar to the charge compositions at other milestones in this report (Exhibit 5A.1 and Table 5a). Unlike the prior reporting period, however, second-degree robbery, not first-degree robbery, was the most common charge at disposition in the upper court in 2009 (41%). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly eight of every ten dispositions. After robbery charges, the next most frequent single charge was assault, which accounted for nine percent of Supreme Court dispositions in 2009. Only one of the cases disposed in 2009 had an A-felony disposition charge (second-degree murder in the Bronx). B-felony charges accounted for 53 percent of disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges accounted for the remaining cases (47%). Borough differences in the distribution of JO disposition charges were slight (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). Manhattan had the smallest proportion of cases with disposition charges of first-degree robbery (20%) and had the highest proportion of cases with second-degree robbery charges (44%). Manhattan also had the smallest proportion of cases disposed on first- or seconddegree robbery charges (64%). The borough with the next smallest proportion was Brooklyn (78%), followed by the Bronx (82%), and Queens (83%). Manhattan also had the highest proportion of cases disposed as C or D felonies, mainly because of the high proportion of cases charged with possession of a weapon in the second degree at disposition (15%). 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, 74 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was highest in Queens (98%), followed by Manhattan (90%), Brooklyn (87%), and the Bronx (54%). 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. Unlike in 2008, juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level were more likely to show convictions (76%) than cases disposed at the B-felony level (73%), though there are borough differences. Cases disposed in Brooklyn and Manhattan showed the C- or D-felony level conviction advantage while those disposed in the Bronx and Queens showed an advantage for convictions to B felonies over C or D felonies (Table 5b). The numbers of disposed JO cases that did not result in convictions in 2009 in boroughs besides the Bronx are too small for meaningful charge comparisons within boroughs.

-60-

Citywide, 277 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing in 2009, more than in 2008 (235) and 2007 (232). As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, juveniles were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 65 percent of JO cases that reached disposition and were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period (compared to 61% in 2008 and 62% in 2007). Forty five percent of juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and twenty 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 four 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 31 percent of the disposed cases. The rates of release for convicted juveniles in JO cases adjourned for sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period varied by borough. In 2009, the highest rate of release at conviction was in Queens where juveniles were released in nearly eight of every ten disposed cases, followed by Manhattan where juveniles were released in three quarters of disposed cases. The rates of release at disposition were lower in Brooklyn (61%) and the Bronx (55%). Manhattan juveniles were more likely to be released on recognizance (61%) than juveniles in any other borough, and juveniles in Queens were more likely to be released on bail (39%) than juveniles in any other borough. Juveniles in cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx were more likely to be remanded with no bail set at disposition (36% and 37%, respectively) than were juveniles in JO cases in Manhattan and Queens (24% and 22%, respectively). 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 JO Parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information on disposition by JO Part and charge-severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, only 62 percent of JO cases reached disposition in a JO Part in 2009. 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 Brooklyn (93%), followed by Manhattan (92%), and then the Bronx and Queens (50% and 14%, 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. 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 in the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts. During this reporting period, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts: over nine of every ten cases disposed in a JO Part resulted in conviction, compared to less than half of the cases disposed in other parts. The low conviction rates for non-JO Parts primarily reflects the low conviction rate in non-JO Parts in the Bronx, since Bronx cases comprise well over 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

-61-

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 non-JO Parts 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 at first Supreme Court appearance, and borough, and in Exhibits 5G and 5H (and Tables 5g and 5h) separately by JO Part versus non-JO Parts, charge severity at Supreme Court disposition, 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 seven appearances and 172 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were similar for JO cases with Bfelony disposition charges (7 appearances and 173 days) and JO cases with C- or D-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 170 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 a median of only one appearance to reach disposition in Queens (indicating that over half of the cases that reached a Supreme Court disposition in Queens did so on their first appearance in the upper court), compared to five in the Bronx, eight in Brooklyn and ten in Manhattan. Cases that require only one appearance from the first appearance in Supreme Court to disposition include, of course, the SCI cases in which, by definition, the plea is entered at the first appearance. Cases may also be dismissed or transferred to the Family Court at the initial hearing in the upper court. Similarly, the median number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from zero days in Queens (again, because more than half were disposed at their first appearance, hence zero days), to over five months in the Bronx, over seven months in Brooklyn, and nearly nine months in Manhattan. Length of case, in terms of both appearances and days, was also examined by the charge severity and type of release status set for the juvenile at the first appearance in Supreme Court (Exhibits 5E and 5F). The median number of appearances and days to reach disposition varied little by charge severity at the first Supreme Court appearance. However, the median number of days to disposition was about six months for cases with juveniles who were released on recognizance at the first appearance in the upper court (6 appearances, 183 days) or on bail (7 appearances, 202 days) and was about four and a half months for cases with juveniles who were remanded with no bail set at the first appearance in Supreme Court (6 appearances, 136 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 severity at disposition, citywide. The median number of appearances and days to disposition was higher in the JO Parts (10 appearances and 248 days), as compared to non-JO Parts (2 appearances and 10 days). Again, this finding probably in part reflects the use of SCIs, which generally reach

-62-

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. 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 (11) and Manhattan (10) than in Brooklyn (8) or Queens (8). Cases took a median of about five months to reach disposition in the JO Parts in Queens, seven months in Brooklyn, nine months in Manhattan, and ten months in the Bronx.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Assault 1 Non-JO Offenses 9%

Murder 2 <1%

3% Other JO Offenses 7%

Robbery 1 37%

Att. Murder 2 3%

Robbery 2 41% (N=380)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other JO Offenses

Non-JO Offenses 100%

1% 2%

11%

20%

2% 5%

3% 7% 9%

80% 10% 42%

38% 41%

39%

60%

44%

40%

39%

20%

45%

37%

20% 4% 1%

Brooklyn (N=99)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=166)

(N=59)

(N=56)

(N=380)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2009 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 % 1

0.6%

1 0 0

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 1

0.3%

1 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

56.6%

56.0%

37.3%

53.6%

201

52.9%

2 39 8 0 1 1 0 3 2 0

2.0% 39.4% 8.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0%

7 66 18 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

4.2% 39.8% 10.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 12 6 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

1.7% 20.3% 10.2% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0%

1 25 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1.8% 44.6% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

11 142 35 1 2 3 0 5 2 0

2.9% 37.4% 9.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0%

43.4%

62.7%

46.4%

178

46.8%

39 0 2 0 2

39.4% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%

69 0 2 0 1

41.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6%

26 0 9 0 2

44.1% 0.0% 15.3% 0.0% 3.4%

21 0 0 0 5

37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.9%

155 0 13 0 10

40.8% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 2.6%

100.0%

166

100.0%

380

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

No Conviction

100%

2% 10%

13%

26%

80%

46%

60% 98% 90%

87%

40%

74% 54%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=99)

(N=166)

(N=59)

(N=56)

Citywide (N=380)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES: Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

Brooklyn % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

0.6%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

Queens %

0.0%

0 0

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.3%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56.6%

56.0%

37.3%

55.4%

202

53.2%

47 9

83.9% 16.1% 100.0%

51 42

54.8% 45.2% 100.0%

19 3

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

31 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

148 54

73.3% 26.7% 100.0%

43.4%

62.7%

44.6%

177

46.6%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

39 4

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

38 34

52.8% 47.2% 100.0%

34 3

91.9% 8.1% 100.0%

24 1

96.0% 4.0% 100.0%

135 42

76.3% 23.7% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

166

100.0%

380

100.0%

Conviction No Conviction TOTAL

86 13

86.9% 13.1% 100.0%

89 77

53.6% 46.4% 100.0%

53 6

89.8% 10.2% 100.0%

55 1

98.2% 1.8% 100.0%

283 97

74.5% 25.5% 100.0%

B FELONIES: Conviction No Conviction Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

24%

31%

36%

80%

22%

37% 2% 14%

60%

39% 20%

20%

12%

40%

61% 45%

43%

41%

20%

39%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=86)

(N=51)

(N=54)

(N=277)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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

54.7%

57.0%

37.3%

57.4%

146

52.7%

18 9 2 18

38.3% 19.1% 4.3% 38.3% 100.0%

17 6 4 22

34.7% 12.2% 8.2% 44.9% 100.0%

7 2 1 9

36.8% 10.5% 5.3% 47.4% 100.0%

12 11 0 8

38.7% 35.5% 0.0% 25.8% 100.0%

54 28 7 57

37.0% 19.2% 4.8% 39.0% 100.0%

45.3%

43.0%

62.7%

42.6%

131

47.3%

17 8 1 13

43.6% 20.5% 2.6% 33.3% 100.0%

20 4 3 10

54.1% 10.8% 8.1% 27.0% 100.0%

24 5 0 3

75.0% 15.6% 0.0% 9.4% 100.0%

9 10 0 4

39.1% 43.5% 0.0% 17.4% 100.0%

70 27 4 30

53.4% 20.6% 3.1% 22.9% 100.0%

100.0%

277

100.0%

35 17 3 31

40.7% 19.8% 3.5% 36.0% 100.0%

37 10 7 32

43.0% 11.6% 8.1% 37.2% 100.0%

31 7 1 12

60.8% 13.7% 2.0% 23.5% 100.0%

21 21 0 12

38.9% 38.9% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0%

124 55 11 87

44.8% 19.9% 4.0% 31.4% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

100%

Non-JO Part

38%

80% 50%

60%

86% 93%

92%

40% 62% 50%

20% 14%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=99)

(N=166)

(N=59)

(N=56)

(N=380)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Dismissed 100%

Transferred to Family Court

93%

Convicted 92%

91%

80%

60% 49% 40%

40%

46%

42%

36% 30% 21%

18%

20%

4% 3%

19%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies

(N=203)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=177)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Charges (N=380)

-72-

Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

0.6%

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.3%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

56.6%

56.0%

37.3%

55.4%

202

53.2%

44 3 4 51

86.3% 5.9% 7.8% 100.0%

47 0 1 48

97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0%

17 1 0 18

94.4% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

114 4 5 123

92.7% 3.3% 4.1% 100.0%

3 2 0 5

60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 10 31 45

8.9% 22.2% 68.9% 100.0%

2 2 0 4

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25 0 0 25

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 14 31 79

43.0% 17.7% 39.2% 100.0%

43.4%

62.7%

44.6%

177

46.6%

38 1 2 41

92.7% 2.4% 4.9% 100.0%

32 1 2 35

91.4% 2.9% 5.7% 100.0%

33 0 3 36

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

104 2 8 114

91.2% 1.8% 7.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

6 13 18 37

16.2% 35.1% 48.6% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 0 0 23

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

31 13 19 63

49.2% 20.6% 30.2% 100.0%

100.0%

166

100.0%

380

100.0%

82 4 6 92

89.1% 4.3% 6.5% 100.0%

79 1 3 83

95.2% 1.2% 3.6% 100.0%

50 1 3 54

92.6% 1.9% 5.6% 100.0%

7 0 1 8

87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

218 6 13 237

92.0% 2.5% 5.5% 100.0%

4 2 1 7

57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0%

10 23 50 83

12.0% 27.7% 60.2% 100.0%

3 2 0 5

60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

48 0 0 48

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

65 27 51 143

45.5% 18.9% 35.7% 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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR 20

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Median Number of Appearances

16 12

10 7

4 0 A or B Felonies (N=202)

C or D Felonies (N=151)

All Charges (N=353)

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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR 350

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Median Number of Days

280

300 250 200 150

220

199 201 147

192

171 164 130 105

126

143

100 50 0 A or B Felonies (N=202)

C or D Felonies (N=151)

All Charges (N=353)

-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 2009 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

52.5

13.0

51.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1

54.0 51.0

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

13.0 -

1 1 0 1

54.0 13.0 51.0

8.0

11.0

1.0

199

7.0

24 15 16 5

9.0 9.0 7.5 6.0

51 4 22 6

4.0 3.0 10.5 12.5

3 5 16 2

17.0 7.0 12.5 14.5

13 9 0 8

1.0 2.0 1.0

91 33 54 21

5.0 7.0 10.0 6.0

9.0

6.5

10.0

1.0

151

7.0

19 7 4 5

8.0 11.0 11.0 6.0

44 1 13 0

6.5 2.0 7.0 -

8 5 19 1

12.0 12.0 8.0 11.0

10 11 1 3

1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

81 24 37 9

7.0 7.5 8.0 5.0

8.0

143

7.0

10.0

1.0

353

7.0

43 22 20 10

8.0 10.5 8.0 6.0

96 5 35 7

5.0 2.0 10.0 13.0

11 10 35 3

13.0 9.5 10.0 11.0

23 21 1 11

1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

173 58 91 31

6.0 7.0 9.0 6.0

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 2009 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

1482.0

464.0

1175.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1

1789.0 1175.0

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

464.0 -

1 1 0 1

1789.0 464.0 1175.0

217.5

187.0

275.0

0.0

199

187.0

24 15 16 5

231.0 278.0 153.0 136.0

51 4 22 6

174.0 105.5 216.5 327.0

3 5 16 2

399.0 208.0 335.5 476.5

13 9 0 8

0.0 42.0 0.0

91 33 54 21

174.0 208.0 222.0 136.0

257.0

178.5

250.0

0.0

151

185.0

19 7 4 5

210.0 342.0 311.5 161.0

44 1 13 0

182.5 93.0 161.0 -

8 5 19 1

351.5 328.0 189.0 355.0

10 11 1 3

0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

81 24 37 9

189.0 184.0 189.0 57.0

232.0

143

183.0

270.0

0.0

353

188.0

43 22 20 10

213.0 279.5 209.0 136.0

96 5 35 7

181.5 93.0 188.0 336.0

11 10 35 3

363.0 275.0 235.0 355.0

23 21 1 11

0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

173 58 91 31

183.0 202.0 221.0 136.0

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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Appearances

15 10

1 0 A or B Felonies (N=203)

C or D Felonies (N=177)

All Charges (N=380)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

300

Non-JO Part

Median Number of Days

255

248

240

250 200 150 100

50 0

0 A or B Felonies (N=203)

C or D Felonies (N=177)

All Charges (N=380)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

51.0

0 0

0 1

51.0

0 0

0 1

51.0

8.0

7.0

11.0

1.0

202

7.0

51 5

8.0 8.0

48 45

11.0 3.0

18 4

11.0 8.5

6 25

6.5 1.0

123 79

10.0 2.0

8.0

5.0

10.0

1.0

177

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

41 2

8.0 13.5

35 37

10.0 3.0

36 1

10.0 21.0

2 23

17.0 1.0

114 63

9.5 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

8.0

166

5.5

10.0

1.0

380

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

92 7

8.0 8.0

83 83

11.0 3.0

54 5

10.0 15.0

8 48

7.5 1.0

237 143

10.0 2.0

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.

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

1175.0

0 0

0 1

1175.0

0 0

0 1

1175.0

218.5

174.0

275.0

0.0

202

173.0

51 5

219.0 134.0

48 45

310.0 92.0

18 4

275.0 206.0

6 25

118.0 0.0

123 79

255.0 76.0

232.0

136.5

250.0

0.0

177

170.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

41 2

232.0 225.5

35 37

269.0 12.0

36 1

246.5 399.0

2 23

410.5 0.0

114 63

240.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

219.0

166

161.0

270.0

0.0

380

172.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

92 7

225.5 134.0

83 83

297.0 83.0

54 5

269.5 399.0

8 48

141.5 0.0

237 143

248.0 10.0

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 266 sentences in the Supreme Court in 2009 were for juvenile offenders, more than in 2008 (225) but comparable to 2007 (265). Overall, 47 percent of sentences for juvenile offenders in 2009 were custodial, far less than in 2008 (59%) but close to the rate in 2007 (50%). This includes an imprisonment sentence (41%, down from 49% in 2008) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (6%, down from 10% in 2008). In 2008, the boroughs differed little in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences, with a range of eleven percentage points, but the range increased to 28 percentage points in 2009. Brooklyn had the highest proportion of incarcerative sentences in 2009 (60%, up from 52% in 2008), followed by the Bronx (51%, down from 64% in 2008). There were sharp decreases in the rate of incarceration in Manhattan and Queens where 32 percent of sentences in JO cases in 2009 were incarcerative, compared to 63 percent and 58 percent, respectively, in 2008. As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (57%, down from 68% in 2008) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (35%, down from 45% in 2008). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given in 2009 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 imprisonment (45%) than were sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts (26%). 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 (50% in JO Parts, compared to 37% in non-JO Parts) during this reporting period. Exhibit 6B.2 presents similar information without regard to charge for each borough and citywide. However, the low volume of cases in particular borough-court part categories makes it difficult to draw conclusions, especially since there were only 53 sentences given in non-JO Parts in 2009. 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 over half (64%) of all of the sentences given to juveniles in non-JO Parts in 2009. 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.

-80-

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, juveniles were granted YO16 status in 86 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 (85%, compared to 87%). 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 (93%), as did 89 percent of those in Manhattan and 88 percent in the Bronx but only 77 percent in Brooklyn. Again, however, borough comparisons by type of court part are limited because of low volume. The small volume of cases that reached sentencing in each borough and type of court part limit the generalizability of these findings. The length of incarcerative sentences is presented in Exhibit 6D and Table 6d. The number of cases with juvenile defendants that were sentenced to imprisonment in 2009 (125) is slightly less than the number in 2008 (133) and in 2007 (132). There was an increase in the volume of incarcerative sentences in Brooklyn (from 40 to 50 in 2009) and decreases in the Bronx (from 47 to 45 in 2009), Manhattan (from 22 to 17 in 2009), and Queens (from 24 to 13 in 2009). Citywide, 44 percent of juveniles sentenced to imprisonment were sentenced to a year or less, comparable to percentage in 2008 (43%). There were fewer juveniles sentenced to one to three years in 2009 (25%, compared to 31% in 2008) and more juveniles sentenced to two to six years or more in 2009 (20%, compared to 14% in 2008). Incarcerative sentences for cases with C- or D-felony conviction charges were shorter than those for cases with more severe charges at conviction: 38 percent of incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to 56 percent of those at the C- or D-felony level. As shown in Exhibit 6D, borough differences in the lengths of sentences were slight, but the low volume of juveniles sentenced to incarceration limits meaningful comparisons. Of note however, was the finding that no cases in Queens were sentenced to two to six years imprisonment or more, and 54 percent of juveniles in Queens, the highest proportion of all the boroughs, were sentenced to a 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 2009 for each of the conviction charge-severity categories, separately by release status at disposition. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 2009 appeared a median of twelve times in Supreme Court, one more than during the previous reporting period, and a median of over a year elapsed between the first appearance and sentencing, up from nine months in 2008 but comparable to the median of one year in 2007. Borough differences in length of case are striking. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (2 appearances, 48 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of eleven appearances in Brooklyn (292 days), thirteen appearances in the Bronx (424 days) and twenty-two appearances (566 days) in Manhattan. 16 If a juvenile offender is found to be a â&#x20AC;&#x153;youthful offender,â&#x20AC;? 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. 17

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 sentencing was shorter for juveniles with more severe conviction charges. JO cases with B-felony charges at conviction took a median of twelve appearances and 364 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court. JO cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction took the same number of appearances but 21 fewer days (Exhibits 6E and 6F). This is probably because only 57 percent of cases with B-felony charges at conviction were released (either on recognizance or bail) while 73 percent of cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction were released (data not shown). However, it is difficult to summarize patterns in length of case (either by median number of appearances or median number of days) by release status and conviction-charge severity for several reasons. 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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

11%

80% 36%

45% 47% 63% 57%

60%

5% 3% 6%

40%

55%

15%

48%

41%

20% 26% 17%

0% Brooklyn (N=84)

Bronx (N=87)

Manhattan (N=54)

Queens (N=41)

Citywide (N=266)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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

57.1%

60.9%

46.3%

51.2%

147

55.3%

28 3 15 2

58.3% 6.3% 31.3% 4.2% 100.0%

29 2 20 2

54.7% 3.8% 37.7% 3.8% 100.0%

10 2 12 1

40.0% 8.0% 48.0% 4.0% 100.0%

6 4 10 1

28.6% 19.0% 47.6% 4.8% 100.0%

73 11 57 6

49.7% 7.5% 38.8% 4.1% 100.0%

42.9%

39.1%

53.7%

48.8%

119

44.7%

18 1 15 2

50.0% 2.8% 41.7% 5.6% 100.0%

13 1 19 1

38.2% 2.9% 55.9% 2.9% 100.0%

4 1 19 5

13.8% 3.4% 65.5% 17.2% 100.0%

1 2 16 1

5.0% 10.0% 80.0% 5.0% 100.0%

36 5 69 9

30.3% 4.2% 58.0% 7.6% 100.0%

100.0%

266

100.0%

46 4 30 4

54.8% 4.8% 35.7% 4.8% 100.0%

42 3 39 3

48.3% 3.4% 44.8% 3.4% 100.0%

14 3 31 6

25.9% 5.6% 57.4% 11.1% 100.0%

7 6 26 2

17.1% 14.6% 63.4% 4.9% 100.0%

109 16 126 15

41.0% 6.0% 47.4% 5.6% 100.0%

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

80%

Probation

Other

70% 58

60%

50% 40%

39 36

30%

20% 10%

13 6

9 4

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

B Felonies (N=147)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=119)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=266)

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

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

100%

80%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

33 36

45 58

60%

17 4

40%

14 55

20%

6 46

11 50

15 29

45 26

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=78) (N=6)

(N=76) (N=11)

(N=52)

(N=7) (N=34)

(N=2)

Queens

Citywide JO NonPart JO Part (N=213) (N=53)

-87-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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:

57.1%

60.9%

46.3%

51.2%

147

55.3%

26 3 15 2 46

56.5% 6.5% 32.6% 4.3% 100.0%

27 2 17 2 48

56.3% 4.2% 35.4% 4.2% 100.0%

9 2 12 1 24

37.5% 8.3% 50.0% 4.2% 100.0%

1 1 4 0 6

16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

63 8 48 5 124

50.8% 6.5% 38.7% 4.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 3 6 1 15

33.3% 20.0% 40.0% 6.7% 100.0%

10 3 9 1 23

43.5% 13.0% 39.1% 4.3% 100.0%

42.9%

39.1%

53.7%

48.8%

119

44.7%

17 0 13 2 32

53.1% 0.0% 40.6% 6.3% 100.0%

10 1 16 1 28

35.7% 3.6% 57.1% 3.6% 100.0%

4 1 18 5 28

14.3% 3.6% 64.3% 17.9% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32 2 47 8 89

36.0% 2.2% 52.8% 9.0% 100.0%

1 1 2 0 4

25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3 0 6

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 16 1 19

0.0% 10.5% 84.2% 5.3% 100.0%

4 3 22 1 30

13.3% 10.0% 73.3% 3.3% 100.0%

100.0%

266

100.0%

43 3 28 4 78

55.1% 3.8% 35.9% 5.1% 100.0%

37 3 33 3 76

48.7% 3.9% 43.4% 3.9% 100.0%

13 3 30 6 52

25.0% 5.8% 57.7% 11.5% 100.0%

2 1 4 0 7

28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 0.0% 100.0%

95 10 95 13 213

44.6% 4.7% 44.6% 6.1% 100.0%

3 1 2 0 6

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 6 0 11

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 5 22 2 34

14.7% 14.7% 64.7% 5.9% 100.0%

14 6 31 2 53

26.4% 11.3% 58.5% 3.8% 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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender 100

91%

83%

82%

Not Youthful Offender 90%

87%

85%

80 60 40 20

18%

17% 9%

10%

15%

13%

0 JO Part

Non-JO Part

B Felonies (N=147)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=119)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=266)

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

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender 100% 12

Not Youthful Offender 9

80%

60% 100 88

40%

78 67 50

20%

Brooklyn JO Part (N=78)

NonJO Part (N=6)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=76) (N=11)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=52) (N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO Part NonJO Part (N=7) (N=34)

JO Part NonJO Part (N=213) (N=53)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2009 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:

57.1%

60.9%

46.3%

51.2%

147

55.3%

37 9 46

80.4% 19.6% 100.0%

39 9 48

81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

19 5 24

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

101 23 124

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 5

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13 2 15

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

19 4 23

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

42.9%

39.1%

53.7%

48.8%

119

44.7%

24 8 32

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

28 0 28

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28 0 28

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

81 8 89

91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

2 2 4

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 1 19

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

27 3 30

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

100.0%

266

100.0%

61 17 78

78.2% 21.8% 100.0%

67 9 76

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

47 5 52

90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

7 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

182 31 213

85.4% 14.6% 100.0%

4 2 6

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

10 1 11

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

31 3 34

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

46 7 53

86.8% 13.2% 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: 2009 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% 11%

12%

17% 24%

80%

46%

27% 36%

27%

18%

60% 20%

24%

40%

25%

28% 20%

31% 11%

20%

22%

20%

29%

20%

15%

0% Brooklyn (N=50)

Bronx (N=45)

Manhattan (N=17)

Queens (N=13)

Citywide (N=125)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT INCARCERATIVE SENTENCES

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

1 ⅓ 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

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 0

0 0

0.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

62.0%

68.9%

70.6%

76.9%

67.2%

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

5 11 10 2 3 31

16.1% 35.5% 32.3% 6.5% 9.7% 100.0%

2 6 4 9 10 31

6.5% 19.4% 12.9% 29.0% 32.3% 100.0%

2 1 3 1 5 12

16.7% 8.3% 25.0% 8.3% 41.7% 100.0%

4 1 3 2 0 10

40.0% 10.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 19 20 14 18 84

15.5% 22.6% 23.8% 16.7% 21.4% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

38.0%

31.1%

29.4%

23.1%

32.8%

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

1 7 4 0 7 19

5.3% 36.8% 21.1% 0.0% 36.8% 100.0%

3 6 5 0 0 14

21.4% 42.9% 35.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 1 0 0 5

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

2 0 1 0 0 3

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

8 15 11 0 7 41

19.5% 36.6% 26.8% 0.0% 17.1% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

125

100.0%

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

6 18 14 2 10 50

12.0% 36.0% 28.0% 4.0% 20.0% 100.0%

5 12 9 9 10 45

11.1% 26.7% 20.0% 20.0% 22.2% 100.0%

4 3 4 1 5 17

23.5% 17.6% 23.5% 5.9% 29.4% 100.0%

6 1 4 2 0 13

46.2% 7.7% 30.8% 15.4% 0.0% 100.0%

21 34 31 14 25 125

16.8% 27.2% 24.8% 11.2% 20.0% 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: 2009 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Appearances

16 15

12 12

12 12 10

5 0 B Felonies

C or D Felonies

(N=145)

All Charges

(N=115)

(N=260)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

600 500 400 300

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

Median Number of Days 546 451

425

364

346

438

401

385

370 313

266

200

385 252

251 140

100 0 B Felonies (N=145)

C or D Felonies (N=115)

All Charges (N=260)

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

-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 2009 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

0 0 0 0

10.5

13.0

22.0

3.0

145

12.0

19 9 0 20

10.0 11.0 10.0

22 5 1 23

13.0 10.0 15.0 14.0

15 1 2 7

24.0 19.0 27.5 18.0

4 7 0 10

2.0 4.0 2.5

60 22 3 60

13.0 10.0 20.0 12.0

12.0

15.0

18.0

2.0

115

12.0

17 5 1 13

11.0 15.0 8.0 12.0

20 3 2 8

15.5 13.0 13.0 14.5

19 5 0 3

22.0 11.0 16.0

9 6 0 4

2.0 2.0 2.0

65 19 3 28

14.0 11.0 9.0 12.5

11.0

13.0

21.5

2.0

260

12.0

36 14 1 33

10.5 12.5 8.0 11.0

42 8 3 31

13.0 11.0 15.0 14.0

34 6 2 10

22.0 12.0 27.5 17.0

13 13 0 14

2.0 3.0 2.0

125 41 6 88

14.0 10.0 16.0 12.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes six 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 2009 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

287.0

419.0

630.0

47.0

145

364.0

19 9 0 20

325.0 385.0 231.0

22 5 1 23

406.5 465.0 305.0 423.0

15 1 2 7

700.0 492.0 910.0 519.0

4 7 0 10

48.5 138.0 31.5

60 22 3 60

425.0 346.5 546.0 266.5

292.5

454.0

511.0

48.0

115

385.0

17 5 1 13

340.0 446.0 98.0 252.0

20 3 2 8

602.5 454.0 230.5 329.0

19 5 0 3

558.0 447.0 615.0

9 6 0 4

48.0 48.5 24.5

65 19 3 28

451.0 401.0 140.0 251.0

292.5

424.5

566.0

47.5

260

370.0

36 14 1 33

327.0 387.0 98.0 236.0

42 8 3 31

470.5 459.5 305.0 406.0

34 6 2 10

591.5 449.0 910.0 532.5

13 13 0 14

48.0 58.0 27.5

125 41 6 88

438.0 385.0 313.0 252.0

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 through 2009 are not comparable to those in previous reports. The rates presented here are based on all of the juveniles released on bail or 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 301 cases with released juveniles during the reporting period. This includes 230 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 71 who were released on bail. Eleven released juveniles (4%) failed to appear as scheduled for at least one appearance in Criminal Court in 2009.18 As shown in Exhibit 7, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was higher for juveniles released on recognizance (4%) than for those released on bail (1%). 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. Five of the eleven juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in Brooklyn, two had been released in Manhattan, and four had been released in Queens. The FTA rate varied somewhat across the boroughs. For juveniles who were released on recognizance in Criminal Court, the FTA rate ranged from less than four percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan to eight percent in Queens. Pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court in 2009 for a total of 380 cases of released juveniles. This includes 283 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 97 who were released on bail. Seven percent of the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear at least once in Supreme Court in 2009 failed to appear at least once. 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 (7%) than for those released on bail (5%). 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 (202), and the FTA rate in the Bronx (6%) was lower than in any other borough except Queens. The FTA rate was slightly more than eight percent for the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court and slightly less than eight percent for the released juveniles scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court. None of the seventeen 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 Supreme Court reflects the high disposition rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court as a consequence of the frequent use of SCIs. 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-

-99-

Exhibit 7 Failure to Appear Rates by Release Status 2009 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

10% 7%

7% 5%

0% Criminal Court (N=230)

(N=71)

(N=301)

Supreme Court (N=283)

(N=97)

(N=380)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2009 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

141

87.6%

5 136

3.5% 96.5% 100.0%

0 0

12.4%

0 20

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

161

100.0%

5 156

3.1% 96.9% 100.0%

0 0

64.2%

174

7 63

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

39 2 37

81.3%

48.7%

230

76.4%

2 50

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

3 34

8.1% 91.9% 100.0%

10 220

4.3% 95.7% 100.0%

18.8%

51.3%

23.6%

0 12

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 38

2.6% 97.4% 100.0%

1 70

1.4% 98.6% 100.0%

100.0%

301

100.0%

2 62

3.1% 96.9% 100.0%

4 72

5.3% 94.7% 100.0%

11 290

3.7% 96.3% 100.0%

86.1%

67.3%

23.5%

283

74.5%

10 164

5.7% 94.3% 100.0%

3 32

8.6% 91.4% 100.0%

0 4

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20 263

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

35.8%

13.9%

32.7%

76.5%

25.5%

5.1% 94.9% 100.0%

2 26

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

1 16

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

0 13

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5 92

5.2% 94.8% 100.0%

109

100.0%

202

100.0%

380

100.0%

9 100

8.3% 91.7% 100.0%

12 190

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

4 48

7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

0 17

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25 355

6.6% 93.4% 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.