Juveniles Report 10 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 2010

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2011

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 2010

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Miles H. Riemer-Peltz Research Assistant

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2011

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2011 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2011. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2010. 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 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 91 93

-vi-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES ........................................................ 95 Exhibit 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status .................................................................. 97 Table 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juvenile Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2007 .................................................................... 98 APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES........................................................................ 99

-1-

INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report. Serious crime committed by young offenders has attracted considerable attention and 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 more common "waiver-up" system, 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 2010 (the second half of fiscal year 2010 and the first half of fiscal year 2011). The report describes selected characteristics of juvenile defendants arrested for serious crimes during the reporting period, and provides information on court activity for these cases in the Criminal (lower) and Supreme (upper) Court. The numbers and types of arrests, as well as disposition and release-status decisions are included. This information can provide policy-makers with an understanding of the types of offenses attributed to juveniles, and of the routine system responses. In addition, this report 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 as a YO, an offender convicted of a JO offense must be sentenced 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. 3 The Corporation Counsel, representing the City of New York, or sometimes the county district attorney, is termed the "presentment agency." These agents present the petition regarding a particular respondent in Family Court.

-3-

to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05 which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required. In response to concern regarding JOs, the city has developed specialized courtrooms in Supreme Court in each borough except Staten Island called Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts) for the handling and disposition of some JO cases. JO cases may be assigned to these parts after indictment, either for Supreme Court arraignment or afterwards. 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 contains descriptive information, such as charge type, borough of arrest, and gender for processing activity that occurred during the reporting period at different decision points in the adult court process. The report first addresses arrests, and then provides information about the initial and disposition hearings in both courts. Sentence information for Supreme Court is also included. This report covers the 2010 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. It is divided into seven sections: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Arrest; Criminal Court (CC) arraignment; Criminal Court disposition; Supreme Court (SC) first appearance; Supreme Court disposition; Supreme Court sentence; Failure-to-appear (FTA) rates.

Any case which had a specific action (arrest, arraignment, disposition, or sentence) during the reporting period is counted in the appropriate section. If a case had two or more actions, it is counted multiple times. For example, if a defendant was arrested and arraigned in Criminal Court during the reporting period, that case would be counted in both the arrest and Criminal Court arraignment sections. Thus, the report does not present a picture of only those defendants who entered the system during a reporting period, and instead reflects all cases on which any specific action, such as arraignment or disposition, was taken. The information is presented first with graphic displays called "Exhibits," which use percentages, and then in tables, which contain detailed numbers and percentages that relate to a specific exhibit. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, Exhibit 2B presents arraignment release status by borough, while Table 2b provides arraignment release status by affidavit charge severity as well as 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 fourth 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 arrest date. This change results in the inclusion of defendants who were 16 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 unknown.4 Because of the extremely low number of juvenile offenders arrested and processed in Staten Island (there were 64 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 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 defendants is relevant only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section we discuss defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the arraignment hearing; the defendants whose 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-

cases were terminated at that point through a dismissal have no release status and are not included in the information. Cases transferred to Family Court or elsewhere will have a release status because the case is still open; however this 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 continuing in the system.5 For cases retained in the adult court system, the Exhibit indicates whether the defendants were released (either on their own recognizance or through bail making) or detained (either 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. A Criminal Court case that is transferred to the Supreme Court may be associated with more than one indictment number, but it will also be tallied only once, again according to the most severe disposition, charge, and release status. Alternatively, 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. Still, most arrests are represented by one docket and, if transferred to the upper court, have only one indictment number. 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. From January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, there were 1,809 arrests for JO offenses (Exhibit A). A quarter of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,348 cases (75%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, around seven 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 (73%). 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 retained cases are those which 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

1,348 (75%) 461 (25%)

Release Decision Released

Detained

Not Applicable

257 (57%)

196 (43%)

Arrests

1,809

CC Arraignments

4536

0 (0%)

CC Dispositions

465

144 (31%)

SC 1st Appearances

301

25 (8%)

276 (92%)

177 (65%)7

97 (35%)

SC Dispositions

307

83 (27%)

224 (73%)

133 (60%)8

88 (40%)

453 (100%)

321 (69%) data not available data not available

The volume of arraignments is 453 and not 461 because the 8 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 274 cases, not 276, because the release status data is not relevant for the cases in which a bench warrant was ordered or stayed (2) at the first appearance. 8

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 221, not 224, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence. In three cases the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1,809 arrests for JO offenses in 2010. This is almost identical to the 1,808 arrests reported in 2009, but much lower than the 2,223 arrests reported for 2008 and 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 at arrest. This change resulted in the inclusion of 41 cases for juveniles who were sixteen years old or older at arrest in 2010 (18 in 2009, 56 in 2008, and 32 in 2007). In addition, every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible age-at-offense was tallied. This change was implemented to address the marked increase in arrests that are assigned more than one arrest number by the NYPD in order to separate the processing of different cases. Prior to the 2007 report, when a juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrest was associated with more than one arrest number, only one of the arrests (the one that was docketed, if any were docketed) was included in the report. The change resulted in an increase in the number of juvenile offender arrests tallied in the first section of this report. The data in subsequent sections is not affected since no docketed arrests were excluded in 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. Exhibit 1A.1 and Table 1a indicate that, in 2010, second-degree robbery was the most serious charge for more than two thirds of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for over 80 percent of juvenile arrests. Consistent with previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. Six of the arrests in 2010 were for such a severe charge (e.g., second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson). After firstand second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was possession of a weapon in the second degree, which accounted for six percent of the arrests. This was followed by burglary in the second degree and possession of a weapon in the third degree, which each accounted for three percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. In addition it should be noted 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 consequently, juveniles can be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, all of the 103 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and all of the 50 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 are included in this report as JO arrests. Type of offense at arrest varied somewhat in 2010 across the boroughs (Exhibit 1A.2). Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in the four largest boroughs, representing 58 percent of all JO arrests in Manhattan, 67 and 70 percent of JO arrests in Brooklyn and the Bronx, respectively, and 78 percent of JO arrests in Queens. Arrests for either of the weapon charges ranged from five percent in Queens to eight percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx, to sixteen percent in Manhattan (Table 1a). The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained extremely small in each borough. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the volume is higher but remains small. Murder and attempted murder charges combined accounted for only one percent of the JO arrests in 2010. Exhibit 1B shows that roughly six of every ten juveniles arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of the offense. In prior reporting periods, as previously mentioned, juvenile offenders were identified on the basis of their age at arrest. Increased availability of the date of

-8-

the offense permitted improvement to the selection criteria. The juveniles in JO arrests in Manhattan (67%) were more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense than were those in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens (61%, 58%, and 56%, respectively). There were 41 JO cases included in the 2010 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 every borough, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds accounted for more JO arrests than did younger arrestees. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (84% in 2010, ranging from 85% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. The percentage of female arrestees ranged from nine percent in Staten Island to 17 percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx. In 2010, female arrestees are underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories in all boroughs. Citywide, only ten percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to 17 percent of the C- or D-felony arrests (Table 1c). Overall, JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D and Table 1d indicate, 25 percent of the 2010 JO arrests were docketed, similar to the volume of docketed arrests in 2009 (29 percent), 2008 (30 percent), and 2007 (28 percent).9 A higher proportion of JO arrests were filed in adult court in 2003 through 2006 (35%, 34%, 32%, and 31%, respectively), which reflects the change in the way JO arrests were tallied in this reporting series. For 2007 through 2010, every arrest number associated with a JOeligible 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.

-9Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 2010 JO Arrests

Other 14%

Murder 2 & Att. Murder 2 1% Robbery 1 14%

Assault 1 2%

Robbery 2 69%

(N=1809)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2010 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 13%

10%

12% 2%

20%

25%

14% 2%

80%

2% 2%

60% 67%

70%

69%

78% 58%

70%

40%

20% 17%

14%

9% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=567)

(N=557)

(N=261)

(N=360)

(N=64)

(N=1809)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2010 JO Arrests

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

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

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

TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens % 0.0%

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N %

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

1 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

4 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.3%

6 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

131

23.1%

110

19.7%

18.4%

13.9%

2 94 15 0 3 12 0 0 5 0

0.4% 16.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.5% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

3 78 13 0 5 7 0 2 2 0

0.5% 14.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%

3 37 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0

1.1% 14.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4 33 7 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

1.1% 9.2% 1.9% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 5 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

14.1%

348

19.2%

0.0% 7.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

12 247 40 0 11 29 0 2 7 0

0.7% 13.7% 2.2% 0.0% 0.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%

435

76.7%

443

79.5%

212

81.2%

310

86.1%

85.9% 1455

80.4%

380 12 31 12

67.0% 2.1% 5.5% 2.1%

391 7 33 12

70.2% 1.3% 5.9% 2.2%

150 19 25 18

57.5% 7.3% 9.6% 6.9%

279 13 12 6

77.5% 3.6% 3.3% 1.7%

45 6 2 2

70.3% 1245 9.4% 57 3.1% 103 3.1% 50

68.8% 3.2% 5.7% 2.8%

567

100.0%

557

100.0%

261

100.0%

360

100.0%

100.0% 1809

100.0%

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: 2010 JO Arrests 14

100% 80% 58%

61%

42%

39%

67%

56%

53%

44%

47%

60%

60% 40% 20%

33%

40%

0% Brooklyn (N=567)

Bronx

Manhattan Queens

(N=557)

(N=261)

Staten Is.

(N=360)

(N=64)

Citywide (N=1809)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2010 JO Arrests

Males

Females

100% 17%

16%

13%

83%

84%

87%

16%

80% 60%

91%

84%

40% 20% 0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=567)

(N=557)

(N=261)

(N=360)

(N=64)

(N=1809)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens % 0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

131

23.1%

110

19.7%

18.4%

13.9%

0 51 80

0.0% 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

0 44 66

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 23 25

0.0% 47.9% 52.1% 100.0%

0 20 30

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 3 6

435

76.7%

443

79.5%

212

81.2%

310

86.1%

0 189 246

0.0% 43.4% 56.6% 100.0%

0 173 270

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0 63 149

0.0% 29.7% 70.3% 100.0%

0 137 173

567

100.0%

557

100.0%

261

100.0%

0 240 327

0.0% 42.3% 57.7% 100.0%

0 217 340

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

0 87 174

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 6

0.3%

0 1 5

0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

14.1%

348

19.2%

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 141 207

0.0% 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

85.9%

1455

80.4%

0.0% 44.2% 55.8% 100.0%

0 27 28

0.0% 49.1% 50.9% 100.0%

0 589 866

0.0% 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

360

100.0%

1809

100.0%

0 157 203

0.0% 43.6% 56.4% 100.0%

0 30 34

0.0% 46.9% 53.1% 100.0%

0 731 1078

0.0% 40.4% 59.6% 100.0%

0 0 0

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens % 0.0%

Staten Island N %

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

131

23.1%

110

19.7%

18.4%

13.9%

114 17

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

101 9

91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

45 3

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

44 6

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

9 0

435

76.7%

443

79.5%

212

81.2%

310

86.1%

355 80

81.6% 18.4% 100.0%

361 82

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

173 39

81.6% 18.4% 100.0%

268 42

567

100.0%

557

100.0%

261

100.0%

469 98

82.7% 17.3% 100.0%

465 92

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

219 42

83.9% 16.1% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 6

0.3%

4 2

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

14.1%

348

19.2%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

313 35

89.9% 10.1% 100.0%

85.9% 1455

80.4%

86.5% 13.5% 100.0%

49 6

89.1% 1206 10.9% 249 100.0%

82.9% 17.1% 100.0%

360

100.0%

100.0% 1809

100.0%

312 48

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

58 6

90.6% 1523 9.4% 286 100.0%

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

0 0

-15Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2010 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 12% 20% 27%

25%

29%

26%

80%

60%

88% 80%

40%

73%

75%

71%

74%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=567)

Bronx (N=557)

Manhattan Queens (N=261)

(N=360)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=64)

(N=1809)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Arrests

DOCKET STATUS A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

131

23.1%

110

19.7%

18.4%

13.9%

34 97

26.0% 74.0% 100.0%

24 86

21.8% 78.2% 100.0%

11 37

22.9% 77.1% 100.0%

9 41

18.0% 82.0% 100.0%

5 4

435

76.7%

443

79.5%

212

81.2%

310

86.1%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

380 55

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

370 73

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

184 28

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

279 31

ALL CHARGES:

567

100.0%

557

100.0%

261

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

414 153

73.0% 27.0% 100.0%

395 162

70.9% 29.1% 100.0%

195 66

74.7% 25.3% 100.0%

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

0.0%

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 6

0.3%

1 5

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

14.1%

348

19.2%

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%

83 265

23.9% 76.1% 100.0%

85.9% 1455

80.4%

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

51 4

92.7% 1264 7.3% 191 100.0%

86.9% 13.1% 100.0%

360

100.0%

100.0% 1809

100.0%

288 72

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

56 8

87.5% 1348 12.5% 461 100.0%

74.5% 25.5% 100.0%

0 0

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 45310 cases arraigned on JO offenses during the 2010 reporting period, less than in 2009 (520), and much less than in 2008 (660). The volume of arraigned JO cases was substantially higher prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The thirteen percent citywide decrease in arraignment volume from 2009 is not equal across boroughs. The decrease is most marked in Manhattan, where 66 juveniles were arraigned in 2010 compared to 100 in 2009 (a 34% decrease in volume). The volume of arraigned JO cases fell roughly 20 percent in Queens (73, compared to 92 in 2009) and Brooklyn (152, compared to 188 in 2009). In the Bronx, however, there were 162 arraignments in 2010, a fourteen percent increase from 140 arraignments in 2009. The Bronx and Brooklyn accounted for 36 and 34 percent of JO arraignments citywide, respectively. Queens accounted for sixteen percent and Manhattan just fifteen percent of the citywide volume. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that over 78 percent of JO cases in adult court had a robbery charge at arraignment. The proportion of first- and second-degree robbery charges at arraignment was slightly less than the proportion of robbery charges in the JO arrest population. First-degree robbery charges were especially more prevalent among arraigned cases (42%, compared to 14% at arrest), and second-degree robbery charges were more common at arrest (69%, compared to 36% at arraignment). However, the proportion of first-degree robbery charges at arraignment increased from 38 percent in 2009 to 42 percent in 2010, while the proportion of second-degree robbery charges at arraignment decreased, from 46 percent in 2009 to 36 percent in 2010. The differences between the distribution of charges at arrest and at arraignment are primarily a result of the lower rates of non-prosecution for juveniles with lesser-severity arrest charges. Shown in Table 1d in the previous section, juvenile arrestees 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, less than 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 D-felony charges at arrest. Far fewer juveniles were arraigned in Criminal Court than were arrested, so those with more severe arraignment charges, such as first-degree robbery, constituted a larger proportion of the arraignment population than of the arrest population. Charges at arraignment varied somewhat by borough, as illustrated in Exhibit 2A.2. In 2010, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 30 and 33 percent in Manhattan and the Bronx, respectively, to 48 percent in Queens and 53 percent in Brooklyn. In most reporting years, when first- and second-degree robbery are considered together, the borough differences are narrower because boroughs with a higher proportion of juveniles arraigned on first-degree robbery tend to have lower proportions of juveniles arraigned on second-degree robbery charges. In 2010, however, borough differences are nearly as wide when both robbery charges are considered together. First- and second-degree robbery accounted for 68 and 74 percent of arraignment charges in Manhattan and Bronx JO cases, respectively, but 10

The volume of arraigned cases 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-

accounted for 84 percent of arraignment charges in Brooklyn JO cases and 85 percent in Queens. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges across the boroughs.11 Exhibit 2B shows that 52 percent of juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2010, slightly higher than the 50 percent ROR rate in 2009 and 49 percent in 2008, but lower than the 53 percent ROR rate in 2007. The citywide increase in ROR rates at arraignment is not reflected equally in each borough. The rate of ROR increased in Queens (up to 41% from 30% in 2009) and Manhattan (up to 42% from 37% in 2009), but decreased in the Bronx (down to 60% from 67% in 2009) and Brooklyn (down to 52% from 54% in 2009). Typically, if defendants are not released on recognizance, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only 22 juveniles (5%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2010, with some borough differences: ten percent of JO defendants made bail at arraignment in the Bronx compared to less than three percent of those in Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. Juvenile defendants in Queens and Manhattan were most likely to be detained (56%) at arraignment on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. Fortyseven percent of juvenile defendants were detained at arraignment in Brooklyn and only 29 percent were detained in the Bronx. Citywide, release rates varied by the severity of the affidavit charge (Table 2b). Defendants in cases with more serious arraignment charges were more likely to be detained. In 2010, the ROR rate in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 45 percent (41% in 2009) compared to 64 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (60% in 2009). Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment persist within charge-severity categories. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2010, the percentage of defendants released on recognizance was highest in the Bronx (60%), followed by Brooklyn (41%) and Manhattan (35%), and lowest in Queens (29%). At the C- and D-felony level, the ROR rate ranged from 50 percent in Manhattan to 77 percent in Brooklyn. Exhibit 2C presents the release information for males and females in Criminal Court JO arraignments. In 2010, 61 percent of females were released on recognizance (a thirteen percentage point decrease from 2009), compared to 50 percent of males released on recognizance (a five percentage point increase from 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, which was first implemented for testing in April 1996. Prior to that date, the interview data for juvenile defendants were provided without a release recommendation because the community ties criteria for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to 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-

FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 2010, eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation, more than in 2004 through 2009, but slightly less than the 83 percent recommended in 2003. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated according to the protocol used for adults. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then 85 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, comparable to the 86 percent recommended in 2009 and 85 percent recommended in 2008. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the defendant from eligibility for any recommendation. These considerations include the “Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID,” “No NYSID Available,” “Murder Charge” (125.25 or 110-125.25) or “Interview Incomplete.” The murder charge exclusion was exercised in each of the four largest boroughs in 2010, but no juveniles were excluded from recommendation for ROR because of an outstanding bench warrant. If the juveniles in the “Murder Charge” category are also subtracted from the calculation base, then nearly nine of every ten of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2010 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, about the same as in 2008 and 2009. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR (56%) in 2010 were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (48%), similar to 2009. 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 reflects the lower likelihood of securing release on recognizance for those who were not recommended (48% in 2010 and 47% in 2009, compared to 54% in 2008 and 53% in 2007). The likelihood of release on recognizance for defendants who were recommended for ROR has remained around 55 percent from 2007 to 2010.

-20-

-21Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2010 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 5%

Robbery 1 42%

Robbery 2 36%

Assault 1 8%

Other 8%

(N=453)

Murder 2 1%

-22Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2010 JO Arraignments

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

3% 4%

11%

15% 8%

80%

9% 37%

32%

36%

60%

40% 38%

40% 48%

53%

42% 30%

34%

20%

6% 4% 2%

3% 1%

5% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=152)

(N=162)

(N=66)

(N=73)

(N=453)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2010 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

Queens %

0.7%

1.9%

1.5%

1 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

103

67.8%

54.3%

47.0%

4 80 13 0 0 2 0 1 3 0

2.6% 52.6% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.7% 2.0% 0.0%

7 55 15 0 4 3 0 2 2 0

4.3% 34.0% 9.3% 0.0% 2.5% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

4 20 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

6.1% 30.3% 9.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 35 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

31.6%

43.8%

51.5%

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

48 0 0 0

31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

65 0 6 0

40.1% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0%

25 2 7 0

152

100.0%

162

100.0%

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

TOTAL

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 5

1.1%

5 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

61.6%

267

58.9%

8.2% 47.9% 4.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

21 190 37 0 6 5 0 3 5 0

4.6% 41.9% 8.2% 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.0%

38.4%

181

40.0%

37.9% 3.0% 10.6% 0.0%

27 1 0 0

37.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

165 3 13 0

36.4% 0.7% 2.9% 0.0%

100.0%

453

100.0%

-24Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2010 JO Arraignments

ROR 100%

Bail Set and Made 1%

Bail Set and Not Made 2%

Remand 1%

28%

80%

42%

46% 54%

53%

10%

60% 5%

40% 60% 52%

52% 42%

20%

41%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=152)

(N=162)

(N=66)

(N=73)

(N=453)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Arraignments

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

0.7%

1.9%

1.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 2

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

103

67.8%

54.3%

47.0%

42 1 60 0

40.8% 1.0% 58.3% 0.0% 100.0%

53 14 21 0

60.2% 15.9% 23.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 20 0

35.5% 0.0% 64.5% 0.0% 100.0%

13 1 29 2

31.6%

43.8%

51.5%

37 1 10 0

77.1% 2.1% 20.8% 0.0% 100.0%

45 3 23 0

63.4% 4.2% 32.4% 0.0% 100.0%

17 1 16 0

152

100.0%

162

100.0%

79 2 70 1

52.0% 1.3% 46.1% 0.7% 100.0%

98 17 45 2

60.5% 10.5% 27.8% 1.2% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 5

1.1%

0 0 1 4

0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

61.6%

267

58.9%

28.9% 2.2% 64.4% 4.4% 100.0%

119 16 130 2

44.6% 6.0% 48.7% 0.7% 100.0%

38.4%

181

40.0%

50.0% 2.9% 47.1% 0.0% 100.0%

17 1 10 0

60.7% 3.6% 35.7% 0.0% 100.0%

116 6 59 0

64.1% 3.3% 32.6% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

453

100.0%

28 1 36 1

42.4% 1.5% 54.5% 1.5% 100.0%

30 2 39 2

41.1% 2.7% 53.4% 2.7% 100.0%

235 22 190 6

51.9% 4.9% 41.9% 1.3% 100.0%

-26Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2010 JO Arraignments

Remand 1%

Bail Set/Not Made 44%

ROR 50%

Bail Set/Made 4%

Males (N=389)

Bail Set/Not Made 28%

Bail Set/Made 9%

Remand 2% ROR 61%

Females (N=64)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2010 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 %

126

82.9%

142

87.7%

89.4%

84.9%

389

85.9%

64 2 60 0

50.8% 1.6% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

85 12 43 2

59.9% 8.5% 30.3% 1.4% 100.0%

23 1 34 1

39.0% 1.7% 57.6% 1.7% 100.0%

24 1 35 2

38.7% 1.6% 56.5% 3.2% 100.0%

196 16 172 5

50.4% 4.1% 44.2% 1.3% 100.0%

17.1%

12.3%

10.6%

15.1%

14.1%

15 0 10 1

57.7% 0.0% 38.5% 3.8% 100.0%

13 5 2 0

65.0% 25.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 2 0

71.4% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 4 0

54.5% 9.1% 36.4% 0.0% 100.0%

39 6 18 1

60.9% 9.4% 28.1% 1.6% 100.0%

152

100.0%

162

100.0%

453

100.0%

79 2 70 1

52.0% 1.3% 46.1% 0.7% 100.0%

98 17 45 2

60.5% 10.5% 27.8% 1.2% 100.0%

28 1 36 1

42.4% 1.5% 54.5% 1.5% 100.0%

30 2 39 2

41.1% 2.7% 53.4% 2.7% 100.0%

235 22 190 6

51.9% 4.9% 41.9% 1.3% 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.

-28Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough: 2010 JO Arraignments

J5--Recommended

J6--Not Recommended

J7a--Bench Warrant

J7c--Murder Charge

Recommendation Not Available 100%

15%

2% 8%

4% 10%

11%

80%

17%

60%

87% 82%

40%

80%

78% 62%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=152)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=162)

(N=66)

(N=73)

(N=453)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2010 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

125

82.2%

141

87.0%

62.1%

78.1%

364

80.4%

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

68 2 55 0

54.4% 1.6% 44.0% 0.0% 100.0%

89 13 39 0

63.1% 9.2% 27.7% 0.0% 100.0%

20 1 20 0

48.8% 2.4% 48.8% 0.0% 100.0%

28 2 27 0

49.1% 3.5% 47.4% 0.0% 100.0%

205 18 141 0

56.3% 4.9% 38.7% 0.0% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

7.9%

9.3%

16.7%

11.0%

10.2%

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

8 0 4 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 4 3 0

53.3% 26.7% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 7 0

36.4% 0.0% 63.6% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 6 0

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22 4 20 0

47.8% 8.7% 43.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0 0 0 0

2.0%

3.7%

6.1%

5.5%

3.8%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 0 3 2

16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0 10 6

5.9% 0.0% 58.8% 35.3% 100.0%

7.9%

0.0%

15.2%

5.5%

5.7%

3 0 9 0

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

4 0 6 0

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 19 0

26.9% 0.0% 73.1% 0.0% 100.0%

152

100.0%

162

100.0%

453

100.0%

79 2 70 1

52.0% 1.3% 46.1% 0.7% 100.0%

98 17 45 2

60.5% 10.5% 27.8% 1.2% 100.0%

28 1 36 1

42.4% 1.5% 54.5% 1.5% 100.0%

30 2 39 2

41.1% 2.7% 53.4% 2.7% 100.0%

235 22 190 6

51.9% 4.9% 41.9% 1.3% 100.0%

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

-30-

-31-

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 465 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, fewer than the 574 dockets disposed in 2009 and 642 dockets disposed in 2008. The citywide decrease from the previous reporting period was felt in three of the four largest boroughs: there were 33 percent fewer cases disposed in Manhattan, 31 percent fewer cases disposed in Queens, and 28 percent fewer cases disposed in Brooklyn. Dispositions in the Bronx, however, rose by 22 cases (a 14% increase in case volume). The citywide distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arraignment: robbery charges (either in the first- or second-degree) comprised 80 percent of disposition charges, nearly five percent were attempted murder in the second degree, nearly eight percent were assault in the first degree, one percent were murder in the second degree, and the remaining seven percent were other JO charges. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 69 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a higher percentage than in any year from 2002 through 2009 (37%, 42%, 49%, 56%, 65%, 61%, 63%, and 58%, respectively). Again, there were wide borough differences in the rate of transfer to the upper court, as well as in the change in the rate of transfer from 2009. In 2010, the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was lowest in Brooklyn (51%, up from 35% in 2009), followed by Manhattan (56%, up from 50% in 2009) and Queens (65%, up from 58% in 2009). In the Bronx, 94 percent of cases were transferred to Supreme Court. The remaining nine cases were either dismissed or transferred to Family Court at disposition, which is unusual given that all Bronx cases were transferred to Supreme Court from 2007 to 2009. The high rate of transfer to the upper court in the Bronx reflects the 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. In 2010, two Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from Criminal Court, no cases were transferred from 2007 to 2009, only three cases in 2006 and none in 2005. In comparison, 22 percent of Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from Criminal Court in 2004. Seven Bronx JO cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court in 2010, none were dismissed from 2006 to 2009, and only two were dismissed in 2005, while 17 percent of cases were dismissed in Criminal Court in 2004. The increase in the rate of transfer to Supreme Court corresponded with a decrease in the rates of both transfer to Family Court and dismissal in Criminal Court citywide; still, borough differences are apparent. In the Bronx, as mentioned, there were two cases transferred to Family Court and seven cases dismissed in 2010, whereas in 2009 all cases were transferred to Supreme Court. The rate of dismissal decreased in Manhattan to 43 percent, down from 49 percent in 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-

2009. In Queens, there was a decrease in the rate of dismissal (14%, down from 18% in 2009), but the rate of transfer to Family Court was roughly the same (22%, down from 23% in 2009). The percentage of Brooklyn cases transferred to Family Court represented the biggest decrease from the previous reporting period (16%, down from 31% in 2009), while the rate of dismissals decreased minimally (33%, down from 35% in 2009). Manhattan had the highest rate of dismissal (43%), and Queens had the highest rate of transfer to Family Court (22%). Of course, dismissal of the docket in Criminal Court did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. However, the wide range of dispositions across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals13 and, in addition, convey that there may 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 and Table 3b, the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than disposition in Criminal Court 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 in 2010 was higher for A- or B-felony dockets (74%) than for C- or D-felony dockets (62%). This twelve percentage point difference was greater than the difference in 2009 (8 percentage points). Accordingly, the citywide increase in the rate of transfer to Supreme Court in 2010, compared to 2009, reflects a higher rate of transfer for the Aor B-felony category (74%, compared to 62% in 2009). This increase is mainly due to the effects of two boroughs: Brooklyn and the Bronx. In Brooklyn, 60 percent of cases with B felonies were transferred to the upper court, compared to 42% in 2009. Furthermore, since the Bronx transfers (almost) every case to the Supreme Court as per the court restructuring, whichever charge-severity category has the most cases from that borough displays an elevated rate of transfer to the upper court. In 2010, 91 cases in the Bronx were charged with A or B felonies (56%), compared to 68 cases in 2009 (49%). 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 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 2010 was two, down from three in 2009, but equal to the median number of appearances in 2008 and 2007. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court for A- or B-felony cases, the largest charge category, was two, down from three in 2009. The median number of appearances for cases where bail was set and not made at arraignment, the second largest release status category, was three, the same as in 2009. Lastly, the median number of appearances in Brooklyn was three, the same as in 2009, and two in Manhattan, down from three in 2009. In the Bronx, the median number of appearances was only one, reflecting the (nearly) universal transfer of JO cases to the upper court from arraignment in Criminal Court. 13

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

-33-

The median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court citywide decreased from 28 days in 2009 to 25 days in 2010. For cases with A- or B-felony severity disposition charges, the largest charge severity group, the median number of days decreased in 2010 (to 19 days from 32 days in 2009), and increased slightly for cases with C- or D-felony severity disposition charges (30 days in 2010, compared to 28 days in 2009). This change reflects the difference in the distribution of Bronx cases between those charge severity groups in 2009 and 2010. Almost every case disposed in the Bronx Criminal Court has zero days to disposition since they are nearly all transferred to the Supreme Court at Criminal Court arraignment. In 2009, 23 percent of all cases with A- or B-felony severity disposition charges were disposed in the Bronx, compared to 34 percent in 2010. Since more cases in the A- or Bfelony charge severity group in 2010 were Bronx cases with zero days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court, the median for that charge severity group was lower in 2010 relative to 2009. The citywide median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court decreased considerably for the three largest arraignment release status groups in 2010. Defendants released on recognizance at arraignment had a median of 36 days (40 in 2009), and defendants for whom bail was set and not made had a median of five days (14 in 2009). Defendants for whom bail was set and made had a median of zero days (49.5 in 2009), because more than three-quarters (77%) of the 22 cases in this release status group in 2010 were Bronx cases, most of which had zero days from arraignment to disposition. Thus, the decrease in the median number of days in these release status groups is largely due to an increase in the number of cases disposed in the Bronx in 2010 (162 cases), compared to 2009 (140 cases). In 2010, Bronx cases made up 41 percent of defendants released on recognizance at arraignment (compared to 33% in 2009), 22 percent of defendants for whom bail was set and not made (compared to 17% in 2009), and as mentioned, 77 percent of defendants for whom bail was set and made (compared to just 10% in 2009). In general, the 2010 increase in the Bronx JO volume reduced the citywide length of case in the lower court. Differences in length of case in Criminal Court by borough and by release status are so strong that comparisons of median number of days by charge severity primarily reflect the borough and release status composition at each charge level. Juveniles who were released at arraignment (either through ROR or bail-making) had a greater median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court than juveniles not released at arraignment (either held on bail or remanded with no bail). The shorter citywide median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court in 2010, compared to 2009, reflects the relationship between release status and length of case: juveniles in JO cases were more likely to be detained in 2010, with typically less time between scheduled court appearances, resulting in fewer days to disposition in Criminal Court.

-34-

-35-

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough: 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

3% 10%

15%

8% 9% 7%

80%

35%

36%

38% 40%

60%

41%

40% 49%

50%

41% 35%

30%

20%

5% 1%

4% 2%

5% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=154)

(N=162)

(N=75)

(N=74)

(N=465)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

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

TOTAL B FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

1.9%

1.3%

3 0 0

1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

0.9%

4 0 0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

63.6%

54.3%

44.0%

63.5%

266

57.2%

6 77 11 0 0 2 0 1 1 0

3.9% 50.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%

7 56 14 0 4 3 0 2 2 0

4.3% 34.6% 8.6% 0.0% 2.5% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

4 23 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

5.3% 30.7% 6.7% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 36 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

6.8% 48.6% 6.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

22 192 35 0 6 5 0 3 3 0

4.7% 41.3% 7.5% 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

36.4%

43.8%

54.7%

36.5%

195

41.9%

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

56 0 0 0

36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

65 0 6 0

40.1% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0%

31 2 8 0

41.3% 2.7% 10.7% 0.0%

26 1 0 0

35.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

178 3 14 0

38.3% 0.6% 3.0% 0.0%

154

100.0%

162

100.0%

465

100.0%

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

TOTAL

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Dismissals

Brooklyn (N=154)

Transfers to Supreme Court

51%

33%

16%

Bronx (N=162)

1% 4%

Manhattan (N=75)

Queens (N=74)

50%

56%

65%

14%

10%

75%

94%

43%

22%

Citywide (N=465) 100%

Transfers to Family Court

69%

22%

25%

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

25%

50%

75%

Percentage Disposed in Supreme Court

100%

-38-

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

74%

69% 62%

40 25% 20

22%

19% 13%

10%

7% 0

A or B Felonies (N=270)

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=195)

(N=465)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

1.9%

1.3%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE N %

0.0%

0.9%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

63.6%

54.3%

44.0%

63.5%

266

57.2%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

31 8 59

31.6% 8.2% 60.2% 100.0%

3 0 85

3.4% 0.0% 96.6% 100.0%

10 0 23

30.3% 0.0% 69.7% 100.0%

7 10 30

14.9% 21.3% 63.8% 100.0%

51 18 197

19.2% 6.8% 74.1% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

36.4%

43.8%

54.7%

36.5%

195

41.9%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

20 17 19

35.7% 30.4% 33.9% 100.0%

4 2 65

5.6% 2.8% 91.5% 100.0%

22 1 18

53.7% 2.4% 43.9% 100.0%

3 6 18

11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 100.0%

49 26 120

25.1% 13.3% 61.5% 100.0%

154

100.0%

162

100.0%

465

100.0%

51 25 78

33.1% 16.2% 50.6% 100.0%

7 2 153

4.3% 1.2% 94.4% 100.0%

32 1 42

42.7% 1.3% 56.0% 100.0%

10 16 48

13.5% 21.6% 64.9% 100.0%

100 44 321

21.5% 9.5% 69.0% 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: 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

6 5 4 3

3 2

2 1

3 2

2 1

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=270)

(N=195)

(N=465)

-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 2010 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

1.0

2.0

1.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 2

1.0 1.0

0 0 0 1

2.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 3

1.0 1.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

5.0

266

2.5

38 2 58 0

3.0 4.0 2.0 -

53 14 21 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

11 0 22 0

3.0 2.0 -

14 1 31 1

5.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

116 17 132 1

3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

195

2.0

43 1 12 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

45 3 23 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

18 1 22 0

3.0 5.0 2.0 -

16 0 11 0

5.5 4.0 -

122 5 68 0

2.0 3.0 3.0 -

154

3.0

162

1.0

2.0

5.0

465

2.0

81 3 70 0

3.0 4.0 2.0 -

98 17 45 2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

29 1 44 1

3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0

30 1 42 1

5.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

238 22 201 4

2.5 1.0 3.0 1.5

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

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

36 30 25

14 5

9 1

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=270)

(N=195)

(N=465)

-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 2010 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

0.0

2.0

0.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 2

0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

2.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 3

0.0 0.0

33.5

0.0

9.0

80.0

266

21.5

38 2 58 0

111.0 204.5 4.0 -

53 14 21 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

11 0 22 0

74.0 5.0 -

14 1 31 1

81.5 32.0 83.0 13.0

116 17 132 1

34.0 0.0 5.0 13.0

53.5

0.0

100.0

97.0

195

30.0

43 1 12 0

91.0 14.0 20.0 -

45 3 23 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

18 1 22 0

117.0 178.0 5.0 -

16 0 11 0

97.0 66.0 -

122 5 68 0

37.5 14.0 8.5 -

154

39.5

162

0.0

32.0

81.5

465

25.0

81 3 70 0

92.0 185.0 5.0 -

98 17 45 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

29 1 44 1

100.0 178.0 5.0 2.0

30 1 42 1

90.0 32.0 81.0 13.0

238 22 201 4

36.0 0.0 5.0 1.0

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

-44-

-45-

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases at the first appearance in Supreme Court in 2010 (301) is smaller than in 2009 (335), and much smaller than in 2008 (429). The decrease in the citywide case volume reflects the decreases in Queens (44 cases, down from 62 in 2009) and Manhattan (41 cases, down from 53 in 2009), while the volume of cases in the Bronx decreased minimally (143 cases, down from 146 in 2009) and remained the same in Brooklyn (73 cases). It is important to remember that the number of cases with a first appearance in Supreme Court from 2007 through 2010 is not comparable to the numbers reported for previous periods because of changes to the way indictments were tallied. Before 2007 each indictment was tallied separately, and since the 2007 report, each case that is arraigned in Criminal Court is tracked onward. If a single case is associated with more than one indictment, only the first appearance on the first indictment is 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 by between fourteen 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), establishes that first- and second-degree robbery are still the most common charges. These charges together accounted for more than threequarters (76%) of JO cases entering the upper court in 2010, but slightly less than in the previous reporting period (81%). First-degree robbery charges made up fourteen percent of all juvenile arrests during 2010, but comprised 39 percent of cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges accounted for nearly a fifth of the JO arrests, but almost six of every ten cases that reached the Supreme Court (Table 4a). C- or D-felony charges comprised eight of every ten JO arrests, but only four of every ten JO cases that arrived in the upper court. In short, charges of higher severity were more likely to be represented among the JO cases that reached Supreme Court than were less serious charges. Exhibit 4B indicates that few defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2010 pled guilty (10%) and 30 percent of juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. Few cases (16) were transferred to the Family Court, and even fewer cases (9) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (41%) were continued without a plea because the initial hearing in Supreme Court was probably not the actual Supreme Court arraignment, but was instead a hearing or a pre-arraignment conference. Differences across the boroughs in outcomes at the first appearance are dramatic. Queens had the highest proportion of cases in which juveniles pled guilty at the first appearance (52%), compared to just three cases in Brooklyn, two in the Bronx, and only one in Manhattan. This 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-

finding reflects borough differences in plea policies and in the use of the Superior Court Information (SCI).15 The percentage of juvenile defendants who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 78 percent in Brooklyn, to 68 percent in Manhattan, down to 25 and 17 percent in Queens and the Bronx, respectively. On the other hand, most of the cases in the Bronx (64%) were continued at the first appearance compared to 29 percent of Manhattan JO cases, 23 percent of JO cases in Queens, and 15 percent of Brooklyn JO cases. Ten percent (15 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. Included are cases that were continued for disposition and for sentence; cases that were dismissed, transferred to the Family Court, and those in which a bench warrant was ordered are excluded. 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 61 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 71 percent of cases with C- or D-felony charges. However, the difference can be attributed to the proportion released on recognizance. Juveniles who faced B-felony charges were less likely to be released on recognizance (45%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (56%). Borough differences in the release rates at the first appearance in the upper court were substantial. In 2010, the highest rate of ROR was in the Bronx (64%), followed by Queens (43%), Brooklyn (38%), and Manhattan (29%). However, juveniles in the Bronx were far less likely to secure release on bail (8%) than those in any other borough (25% in Queens, 23% in Brooklyn, and 15% in Manhattan). When release on bail and on recognizance are considered together at the first appearance in Supreme Court, the overall rates of release were close but in the same sequence: highest in the Bronx (73%), followed by Queens (68%), and Brooklyn (61%), but much lower in Manhattan (44%). Exhibit 4D presents the median number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court, for each charge class and release status. In 2010, citywide, it took a median of 18 days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), compared to fourteen days in 2009 and sixteen in 2008. The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity (18 days for B-felony cases and 19 days for C- or D-felony cases). Cases in which defendants were released, on recognizance (19 days) or bail (21 days), or remanded with no bail set (20 days) at the first appearance in the upper court tended to move more slowly between courts than did cases in which defendants were held on bail (10 days). The borough differences found in Table 4d were wide. Similar to the previous reporting period, the longest median time from lower to upper court was in Brooklyn (25 days, down from 30 days in 2009), followed by the Bronx (11 days, up from 5 days), and Manhattan (10 days, up from 8 days). The median number of days from lower to upper court remained lowest in Queens 15

An SCI is prepared by the prosecutorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office and is used as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. The distinction regarding type of accusatory instrument to which a plea is taken is not available for this report.

-47-

(2.5 days). A median of zero days indicates that more than half of the JO cases that came to Supreme Court 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 in light of the low volume 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 varied most by the borough of prosecution.

-48-

-49-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 7%

Robbery 1 39%

Robbery 2 37%

Assault 1 8%

(N=301)

Other 8%

Murder 2 1%

-50-

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

10%

12%

8% 8%

10%

80% 32%

43% 37% 38%

60%

37%

40% 51% 41% 34%

34%

5% 2%

39%

20%

10%

7% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=73)

(N=143)

(N=41)

(N=44)

(N=301)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2010 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

Queens %

2.1%

2.4%

3 0 0

2.1% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 4

1.3%

4 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

68.5%

55.2%

51.2%

56.8%

175

58.1%

7 37 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0

9.6% 50.7% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

7 49 15 0 3 2 0 2 1 0

4.9% 34.3% 10.5% 0.0% 2.1% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0%

2 14 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

4.9% 34.1% 9.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9.1% 40.9% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

20 118 24 0 6 3 0 2 2 0

6.6% 39.2% 8.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0%

31.5%

42.7%

46.3%

43.2%

122

40.5%

23 0 0 0 0

31.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

54 0 4 0 3

37.8% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 2.1%

15 0 4 0 0

36.6% 0.0% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0%

19 0 0 0 0

43.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

111 0 8 0 3

36.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 1.0%

100.0%

143

100.0%

301

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Pled Guilty Dismissed

Pled Not Guilty Continued

100%

Transfer to Family Court Bench Warrant 1%

1% 15% 23%

1% 1%

29%

80%

41%

64%

25%

60% 3%

5% 78%

40% 68% 6%

52%

10%

40%

20% 18%

10% 4%

Brooklyn (N=73)

Bronx

(N=143)

Manhattan (N=41)

Queens (N=44)

Citywide (N=301)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

2.1%

2.4%

0 0 3 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 1 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.3%

0 0 3 1 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

68.5%

55.2%

51.2%

56.8%

175

58.1%

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

0 0 6 41 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 82.0% 6.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 5 56 12 1 1

5.1% 6.3% 70.9% 15.2% 1.3% 1.3% 100.0%

0 0 6 14 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 66.7% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 6 6 13 0

0.0% 0.0% 24.0% 24.0% 52.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 5 74 73 18 1

2.3% 2.9% 42.3% 41.7% 10.3% 0.6% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

31.5%

42.7%

46.3%

43.2%

122

40.5%

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

1 1 5 16 0 0

4.3% 4.3% 21.7% 69.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 10 32 13 1 1

6.6% 16.4% 52.5% 21.3% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0%

0 0 6 13 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 31.6% 68.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 5 10 0

0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 26.3% 52.6% 0.0% 100.0%

5 11 47 47 11 1

4.1% 9.0% 38.5% 38.5% 9.0% 0.8% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

143

100.0%

301

100.0%

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

1 1 11 57 3 0

1.4% 1.4% 15.1% 78.1% 4.1% 0.0% 100.0%

8 15 91 25 2 2

5.6% 10.5% 63.6% 17.5% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0%

0 0 12 28 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 29.3% 68.3% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 10 11 23 0

0.0% 0.0% 22.7% 25.0% 52.3% 0.0% 100.0%

9 16 124 121 29 2

3.0% 5.3% 41.2% 40.2% 9.6% 0.7% 100.0%

-54Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

11%

14% 25%

80%

28%

18% 28% 8%

51%

60%

16%

25% 22%

40% 15% 64% 49%

20%

43%

38% 29%

0% Brooklyn (N=71)

Bronx (N=118)

Manhattan (N=41)

Queens (N=44)

Citywide (N=274)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2010 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

2.5%

2.4%

1 0 1 1

33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.5%

1 0 1 2

25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

70.4%

58.5%

51.2%

56.8%

165

60.2%

14 13 16 7

28.0% 26.0% 32.0% 14.0% 100.0%

46 5 17 1

66.7% 7.2% 24.6% 1.4% 100.0%

5 3 12 1

23.8% 14.3% 57.1% 4.8% 100.0%

9 6 5 5

36.0% 24.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

74 27 50 14

44.8% 16.4% 30.3% 8.5% 100.0%

29.6%

39.0%

46.3%

43.2%

105

38.3%

13 3 4 1

61.9% 14.3% 19.0% 4.8% 100.0%

29 5 11 1

63.0% 10.9% 23.9% 2.2% 100.0%

7 3 9 0

36.8% 15.8% 47.4% 0.0% 100.0%

10 5 3 1

52.6% 26.3% 15.8% 5.3% 100.0%

59 16 27 3

56.2% 15.2% 25.7% 2.9% 100.0%

100.0%

118

100.0%

274

100.0%

27 16 20 8

38.0% 22.5% 28.2% 11.3% 100.0%

76 10 29 3

64.4% 8.5% 24.6% 2.5% 100.0%

12 6 21 2

29.3% 14.6% 51.2% 4.9% 100.0%

19 11 8 6

43.2% 25.0% 18.2% 13.6% 100.0%

134 43 78 19

48.9% 15.7% 28.5% 6.9% 100.0%

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

-56-

Exhibit 4D Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 2010 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

25 21

21 20

17 14

12 10

10 8

A or B Felonies (N=169)

C or D Felonies (N=105)

All Charges (N=274)

-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 2010 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

5.0

14.0

5.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

4.0 5.0 5.0

0 0 0 1

14.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 2

4.0 5.0 9.5

27.0

9.0

8.0

14.0

165

18.0

14 13 16 7

19.0 32.0 43.5 43.0

46 5 17 1

24.5 9.0 4.0 10.0

5 3 12 1

10.0 23.0 7.0 7.0

9 6 5 5

0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0

74 27 50 14

19.0 21.0 8.5 20.0

22.0

16.0

23.0

0.0

105

19.0

13 3 4 1

19.0 23.0 30.5 43.0

29 5 11 1

19.0 4.0 5.0 21.0

7 3 9 0

25.0 29.0 9.0 -

10 5 3 1

0.0 5.0 24.0 0.0

59 16 27 3

19.0 14.5 12.0 21.0

25.0

118

11.0

10.0

2.5

274

18.0

27 16 20 8

19.0 30.0 38.5 43.0

76 10 29 3

21.5 4.5 4.0 10.0

12 6 21 2

23.0 29.0 7.0 10.5

19 11 8 6

0.0 14.0 19.0 0.0

134 43 78 19

19.0 21.0 10.0 20.0

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 In 2010, 307 cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court citywide, a 19 percentage point decrease from the 380 JO cases disposed in 2009. The decrease is reflected in every borough. The volume of disposed cases decreased most in the Bronx (131 dispositions, down from 166 in 2009), followed by Brooklyn (78, down from 99 in 2009), and Queens (48, down from 56 in 2009). However, comparisons of the percent decrease in the volume of dispositions show the largest decline in Manhattan (down 27%), followed by Brooklyn and the Bronx (both down 21%), and the smallest in Queens (down 14%). The 2007 through 2010 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). Like the prior reporting period, second-degree robbery, not first-degree robbery, was the most common charge at disposition in the upper court (41%). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for three-quarters of Supreme Court dispositions in 2010. After robbery charges, assault was the most frequent charge, accounting for seven percent of upper court dispositions. Only four of the disposed cases had an A-felony disposition charge: two cases were disposed with a second-degree murder charge in both the Bronx and Queens (1% citywide). B-felony charges accounted for 51 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 are large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a). The proportion of cases with first-degree robbery charges at disposition ranged from 24 percent in the Bronx, to 30 and 40 percent in Manhattan and Queens, respectively, to 49 percent in Brooklyn. Borough differences in the proportion of cases disposed at the seconddegree robbery level are also wide: a third of cases in Brooklyn were charged with seconddegree robbery at disposition, compared to 38 percent in Queens, 44 percent in the Bronx, and 46 percent in Manhattan. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first- or second-degree robbery charges ranges from 69 percent in the Bronx, to 76 and 77 percent in Manhattan and Queens, respectively, and up to 82 percent in Brooklyn. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first-degree assault, which accounted for about seven percent of disposed cases citywide. Once a JO case was filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate was very high in every borough except the Bronx (Exhibit 5B and Table 5b). Overall, 73 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was highest in Queens (96%), followed by Manhattan (84%), Brooklyn (78%), and the Bronx (57%). The relatively low rate of conviction in the Bronx reflects the consequences of reorganizing the criminal courts in that borough. In 2010, almost all felony cases in the Bronx that were not disposed at the initial lower court hearing were sent to the upper court for adjudication, and, prior to the restructuring of the Bronx courts, many of these cases would have reached disposition in Criminal Court. For JO cases, juvenile defendants may be prosecuted in the adult court only for

-60-

specific serious felony offenses, although the case may be adjudicated in the Family Court instead. In contrast to the prior reporting period, juvenile cases disposed in 2010 at the B-felony level were more likely to yield convictions (77%) than cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (69%), though there are wide borough differences. For cases disposed in the Bronx and Manhattan, convictions were more common for C- or D-felony charges than for B felonies. However, cases disposed at the B-felony level were more likely to show convictions in Brooklyn and Queens (Table 5b). In Brooklyn, 90 percent of the 50 JO cases disposed at the B-felony level were convictions, compared to only 57 percent of the 28 JO cases disposed at the C- or Dfelony level. In 2010, 221 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing citywide, less than in 2009 (277), 2008 (235), and 2007 (232). As Exhibit 5C and Table 5c indicate, defendants were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 60 percent of JO cases that were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period (compared to 65% in 2009, 61% in 2008, and 62% in 2007). Forty-nine percent of juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and eleven percent were released on bail. Comparable to 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 eight 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 32 percent of the disposed cases. The release rates for convicted juveniles in the JO cases adjourned for sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period varied by borough. In 2010, the highest rate of release (either on recognizance or bail) at conviction was in Manhattan where juveniles were released in nearly three-quarters of disposed cases, followed by Brooklyn where juveniles were released in almost six of every ten disposed cases. The rates of release at disposition were lower in Queens (57%) and the Bronx (56%). Manhattan juveniles were more likely to be released on recognizance (68%) than were juveniles in any other borough, and juveniles in Queens were more likely to be released on bail (17%) than in any other borough. Juveniles defendants in Queens and Brooklyn were more likely to be remanded with no bail set at disposition (43% and 38%, respectively) than were defendants in Manhattan and the Bronx (27% and 23%, 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 of JO cases disposed in JO Parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information on disposition by JO Part and felony severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, only 66 percent of JO cases that reached disposition in the reporting period did so in a JO Part. The percentage of cases that reached disposition in a JO Part varied substantially by borough in 2010, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (98%), followed by Brooklyn (94%), and then the Bronx and Queens (50% and 35%, 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. In the Bronx, the low proportion of cases disposed in the JO Part involves case processing in accordance with the merger of the Bronx criminal courts. Since almost every Bronx JO case is 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.

-61-

Borough differences in the proportions of juvenile cases disposed in JO Parts also reflect court and district attorney policies regarding particular types of cases and perhaps the presence of adult co-defendants, information that is not available in the CJA data. Conviction rates tend to be higher for the JO Parts than for the non-JO Parts. During this reporting period, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts: nearly nine of every ten cases disposed in a JO Part resulted in conviction, compared to just over half of the cases disposed in other parts. The low conviction rate 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, again, a consequence of the court merger that occurred in November 2004. Since charge reductions in JO cases frequently involve charges for which juveniles cannot be prosecuted in the adult court, there is a greater proportion of JO cases disposed without conviction in the Bronx Supreme Court compared to other boroughs, and these non-conviction dispositions tend to occur in nonJO Parts. It seems likely that the convictions in non-JO Parts in Queens reflect the inclusion of SCI cases, which 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 Exhibits 5E and 5F and Tables 5e and 5f exclude cases without release statuses. Citywide, in 2010, it took a median of seven appearances and 227 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court. JO cases with B-felony charges took nine appearances and 242 days to reach disposition, and JO cases with C- or Dfelony charges took seven appearances and 197 days to reach disposition. 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). In 2010, it took a median of only three appearances to reach disposition in Queens, compared to seven in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and ten appearances in Manhattan. The low median number of appearances to disposition in Queens is associated with SCI cases in which, by definition, the plea is entered at the first appearance, signifying that there was only one appearance from the first appearance to disposition. Cases may also be dismissed or transferred to the Family Court at the initial hearing in the upper court. Accordingly, the median number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from more than a month in Queens, to over six months in the Bronx, over seven months in Brooklyn, and nearly ten 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 at the first appearance in Supreme Court (Exhibits 5E and 5F). The median number of appearances and days to reach disposition varied between A- or B-felony charges (9 appearances, 246 days) and C- or D-felony charges (7 appearances, 197 days), but the differences were small. Differences in length of case by release status were even smaller. The median number of days to disposition was nearly eight months for defendants who were released

-62-

on recognizance at the first appearance in the upper court (7 appearances, 226 days) or on bail (7.5 appearances, 240 days), and was about eight and a half months for juveniles who were remanded with no bail set at the first appearance in Supreme Court (9 appearances, 259 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 (9 appearances and 246 days), compared to non-JO Parts (2 appearances and 15 days). Again, this finding in part reflects the use of SCIs, which generally reach disposition faster than other cases, and are more likely 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. Still, 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 and Manhattan (10), than in Brooklyn and Queens (7). Cases took a median of about six months to reach disposition in the JO Parts in Queens, seven months in Brooklyn, nine months in the Bronx, and almost ten months in Manhattan.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Offenses 3%

Assault 1 Murder 2 7% 1%

Other JO Offenses 9%

Robbery 1 34%

Robbery 2 41% Att. Murder 2 5%

(N=307)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other JO Offenses

Non-JO Offenses 100%

3% 5%

18%

9% 7%

80%

2% 4% 8%

33%

38%

60%

41%

44% 46%

40% 40%

49% 24%

20%

34% 30%

9% 2%

5% 1%

4% 4%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=78)

(N=131)

(N=50)

(N=48)

(N=307)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2010 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

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

1.5%

2 0 0

1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

4.2%

1.3%

2 0 0

4.2% 0.0% 0.0%

4 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

64.1%

44.3%

44.0%

58.3%

158

51.5%

3 38 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

3.8% 48.7% 7.7% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

12 32 8 0 3 1 0 1 1 0

9.2% 24.4% 6.1% 0.0% 2.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

0 15 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0

0.0% 30.0% 6.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 19 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2% 39.6% 10.4% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

17 104 22 2 8 2 0 2 1 0

5.5% 33.9% 7.2% 0.7% 2.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%

35.9%

54.2%

56.0%

37.5%

145

47.2%

26 0 1 0 1

33.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

58 4 2 0 7

44.3% 3.1% 1.5% 0.0% 5.3%

23 0 5 0 0

46.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%

18 0 0 0 0

37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

125 4 8 0 8

40.7% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

100.0%

131

100.0%

307

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

No Conviction

100%

4% 16%

22%

27%

80%

43%

60% 96%

40%

84%

78%

73% 57%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=78)

(N=131)

(N=50)

(N=48)

(N=307)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES: Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

Brooklyn % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx %

Manhattan N %

1.5%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

4.2%

1.3%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

64.1%

44.3%

44.0%

58.3%

158

51.5%

45 5

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

31 27

53.4% 46.6% 100.0%

18 4

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

28 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

122 36

77.2% 22.8% 100.0%

35.9%

54.2%

56.0%

37.5%

145

47.2%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

16 12

57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

43 28

60.6% 39.4% 100.0%

24 4

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

17 1

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

100 45

69.0% 31.0% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

131

100.0%

307

100.0%

Conviction No Conviction TOTAL

61 17

78.2% 21.8% 100.0%

75 56

57.3% 42.7% 100.0%

42 8

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

46 2

95.8% 4.2% 100.0%

224 83

73.0% 27.0% 100.0%

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

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

23%

27% 32%

80%

38% 44% 5% 20%

60%

11%

16%

17%

40% 68%

49%

43%

20%

39%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=61)

(N=73)

Manhattan (N=41)

Queens

Citywide

(N=46)

(N=221)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 1

1.4%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.2%

0.9%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

73.8%

41.1%

41.5%

60.9%

120

54.3%

20 6 1 18

44.4% 13.3% 2.2% 40.0% 100.0%

10 2 7 11

33.3% 6.7% 23.3% 36.7% 100.0%

10 2 0 5

58.8% 11.8% 0.0% 29.4% 100.0%

10 4 0 14

35.7% 14.3% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

50 14 8 48

41.7% 11.7% 6.7% 40.0% 100.0%

26.2%

57.5%

58.5%

37.0%

44.8%

6 4 1 5

37.5% 25.0% 6.3% 31.3% 100.0%

26 3 8 5

61.9% 7.1% 19.0% 11.9% 100.0%

18 0 0 6

75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

8 4 0 5

47.1% 23.5% 0.0% 29.4% 100.0%

58 11 9 21

58.6% 11.1% 9.1% 21.2% 100.0%

100.0%

221

100.0%

26 10 2 23

42.6% 16.4% 3.3% 37.7% 100.0%

36 5 15 17

49.3% 6.8% 20.5% 23.3% 100.0%

28 2 0 11

68.3% 4.9% 0.0% 26.8% 100.0%

18 8 0 20

39.1% 17.4% 0.0% 43.5% 100.0%

108 25 17 71

48.9% 11.3% 7.7% 32.1% 100.0%

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

-70-

Exhibit 5D.1 Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JO Part

100%

Non-JO Part 2%

34%

80%

50% 65%

60% 98%

94%

40% 66% 50%

20%

35%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=78)

(N=131)

(N=50)

(N=48)

Citywide (N=307)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Convicted

100% 89%

85%

80%

60%

55%

52%

47%

40%

30%

29%

28%26%

19%

20%

14%

7% 5%

13%

10% 5%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=161)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=144)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Charges (N=305)

-72Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 2

1.5%

0.0%

Queens % 2

4.2%

CITYWIDE N % 4

1.3%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

1 0 1 2

0 0 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 0 2 4

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

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

63.6%

44.6%

44.0%

58.3%

157

51.5%

41 1 2 44

93.2% 2.3% 4.5% 100.0%

24 2 3 29

82.8% 6.9% 10.3% 100.0%

17 2 2 21

81.0% 9.5% 9.5% 100.0%

11 0 0 11

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

93 5 7 105

88.6% 4.8% 6.7% 100.0%

4 0 1 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

7 8 14 29

24.1% 27.6% 48.3% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 0 0 17

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 8 15 52

55.8% 15.4% 28.8% 100.0%

36.4%

53.8%

56.0%

37.5%

144

47.2%

16 5 7 28

57.1% 17.9% 25.0% 100.0%

32 0 3 35

91.4% 0.0% 8.6% 100.0%

24 1 3 28

85.7% 3.6% 10.7% 100.0%

6 0 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

78 6 13 97

80.4% 6.2% 13.4% 100.0%

11 12 12 35

31.4% 34.3% 34.3% 100.0%

0 0 0

11 0 1 12

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

22 12 13 47

46.8% 25.5% 27.7% 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:

0 0 0 77

100.0%

130

100.0%

305

100.0%

57 6 9 72

79.2% 8.3% 12.5% 100.0%

56 2 6 64

87.5% 3.1% 9.4% 100.0%

41 3 5 49

83.7% 6.1% 10.2% 100.0%

17 0 0 17

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

171 11 20 202

84.7% 5.4% 9.9% 100.0%

4 0 1 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

19 20 27 66

28.8% 30.3% 40.9% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 0 2 31

93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 100.0%

53 20 30 103

51.5% 19.4% 29.1% 100.0%

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: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

20 16 13 12 8

10 8

4 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=163)

(N=116)

(N=279)

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: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

410

220

251

278

226 240

232 234

259 198

138 147

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=163)

(N=116)

(N=279)

-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 2010 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

42.5

40.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

3.0 -

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 3

40.0 45.0

1 0 1 3

3.0 40.0 45.0

7.0

13.0

10.5

3.0

159

9.0

18 12 12 6

7.0 10.0 5.0 4.5

39 1 15 4

10.0 3.0 17.0 19.5

3 4 12 5

1.0 9.0 10.0 15.0

9 6 8 5

1.0 4.0 10.0 1.0

69 23 47 20

7.0 8.0 10.0 8.0

6.0

7.0

9.0

1.0

115

7.0

13 7 5 2

6.0 8.0 4.0 7.0

32 2 13 0

7.0 3.5 7.0 -

12 1 11 1

12.5 0.0 7.0 21.0

7 5 3 1

1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0

64 15 32 4

7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0

7.0

107

9.0

10.0

3.0

279

7.0

31 19 17 8

7.0 10.0 5.0 5.0

72 3 28 4

8.5 3.0 9.0 19.5

15 5 23 6

11.0 8.0 7.0 16.5

16 11 12 9

1.0 4.0 10.0 1.0

134 38 80 27

7.0 7.5 8.0 9.0

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 2010 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

6.0

1003.5

779.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

6.0 -

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 3

779.0 1228.0

1 0 1 3

6.0 779.0 1228.0

220.0

346.0

328.0

36.5

159

242.0

18 12 12 6

238.0 321.5 92.0 75.0

39 1 15 4

272.0 120.0 427.0 627.5

3 4 12 5

123.0 328.0 239.5 497.0

9 6 8 5

0.0 84.5 241.5 0.0

69 23 47 20

224.0 251.0 277.0 239.5

232.0

197.0

266.0

0.0

115

197.0

13 7 5 2

227.0 234.0 127.0 147.0

32 2 13 0

221.0 239.5 157.0 -

12 1 11 1

435.5 266.0 154.0 541.0

7 5 3 1

0.0 42.0 141.0 0.0

64 15 32 4

229.5 234.0 138.5 147.0

224.0

107

261.0

289.0

36.5

279

227.0

31 19 17 8

230.0 318.0 94.0 75.0

72 3 28 4

258.0 234.0 282.0 627.5

15 5 23 6

328.0 323.0 202.0 500.0

16 11 12 9

0.0 42.0 200.0 0.0

134 38 80 27

225.5 239.5 198.5 259.0

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: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

20 15 10

5 2

0 A or B Felonies (N=162)

C or D Felonies (N=145)

All Charges (N=307)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

300

Non-JO Part

260

246

234

250 200 150 100 50

30 0

0 A or B Felonies (N=162)

C or D Felonies (N=145)

All Charges (N=307)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

36.0

34.5

0 0

0 2

36.0

0 0

0 2

34.5

0 4

34.5

7.0

9.0

10.5

3.0

158

7.0

45 5

7.0 19.0

29 29

12.0 2.0

21 1

10.0 34.0

11 17

10.0 1.0

106 52

9.0 2.0

6.0

9.5

1.0

145

6.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

28 0

6.0 -

36 35

9.0 2.0

28 0

9.5 -

6 12

6.0 1.0

98 47

8.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

131

7.0

10.0

3.0

307

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

73 5

7.0 19.0

65 66

10.0 2.0

49 1

10.0 34.0

17 31

7.0 1.0

204 103

9.0 2.0

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

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

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

864.0

664.0

0 0

0 2

864.0

0 0

0 2

664.0

0 4

664.0

220.0

261.5

328.0

36.5

158

206.5

45 5

220.0 350.0

29 29

342.0 61.0

21 1

323.0 937.0

11 17

203.0 0.0

106 52

260.5 23.0

229.5

192.0

277.5

0.0

145

193.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

28 0

229.5 -

36 35

258.5 21.0

28 0

277.5 -

6 12

152.0 0.0

98 47

234.0 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

222.0

131

197.0

291.5

36.5

307

199.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

73 5

220.0 350.0

65 66

273.0 27.5

49 1

289.0 937.0

17 31

189.0 0.0

204 103

246.0 15.0

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

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

-78-

-79-

SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Exhibit 6A presents the sentences imposed in Supreme Court, by borough, and Table 6a provides the detailed distribution for each conviction-charge severity category. A total of 230 juvenile offenders were sentenced in the Supreme Court during the reporting period, less than in 2009 (266) but comparable to 2008 (225). Citywide, 47 percent of sentences for juvenile offenders in 2010 were custodial, equal to the proportion in 2009, but far less than in 2008 (59%). This includes an imprisonment sentence (45%, up from 41% in 2009) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (2%, down from 6% in 2009). In 2009, the boroughs differed considerably in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences, with a range of 28 percentage points; however, in 2010 this range was just fourteen percentage points. Fifty percent of sentences were incarcerative in Brooklyn (down from 60% in 2009), the Bronx (down from 51% in 2009), and Queens (up from 32% in 2009), while the rate of incarceration in Manhattan was 36 percent (up from 32% in 2009). As Table 6a indicates, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence in 2010 was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (53%, down from 57% in 2009) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (38%, up from 34% in 2009). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences in the JO Parts to those given in non-JO Parts, for different conviction-charge severities, citywide in 2010. Sentences in JO Parts were far more likely to require imprisonment (49%) than were sentences in non-JO Parts (32%). If “split” sentences (requiring both imprisonment and probation) are also considered, the difference between JO and non-JO Parts in the likelihood of incarcerative sentences was reduced (51% in JO Parts, compared to 36% in non-JO Parts). Exhibit 6B.2 presents the sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts for each borough in 2010. However, the low volume of cases in certain borough-court part categories precludes meaningful comparisons in those boroughs. In both Manhattan and Brooklyn, sentences were given in nonJO Parts in only two cases. Furthermore, any citywide differences in types of sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts are more likely to reflect the use or non use of JO Parts in the boroughs and the specific sentencing practices of the particular boroughs rather than any intrinsic differences in sentencing in JO versus non-JO Parts. For example, juveniles in Brooklyn, followed by Manhattan and the Bronx, were far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to the JO Part than were juveniles in Queens. Even after the 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. By contrast, Queens accounted for over half (61%) of all of the sentences in non-JO Parts in 2010 as a result of the high frequency of SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts. Accordingly, the sentencing patterns in non-JO Parts are more likely to reflect the model in Queens. Citywide comparisons are affected by the distribution of cases between JO and non-JO Parts across boroughs, as well as changes in these distributions from year to year. Exhibits 6C.1 and 6C.2, and Table 6c, display the conditions of sentence granted in JO versus non-JO Parts, for different conviction-charge classes, citywide. Overall, juvenile defendants were granted YO16 status in 81 percent of the sentences during the reporting period17. 16

If a juvenile offender is found to be a ‘youthful offender,’ the conviction is vacated and replaced by a youthful offender finding. A lighter sentence, one authorized for conviction at the E-felony level, is imposed. 17 Table 6c does not display the percentages granted YO status by borough for JO and non-JO Parts combined.

-80-

Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts were slightly more likely to receive YO status (82%) than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (80%). Juveniles sentenced in cases in the Bronx were less likely to receive YO status (77%) than were their counterparts in Queens (84%), Brooklyn (83%), or Manhattan (82%). Borough comparisons by type of court part are still limited because of low volume. The length of incarcerative sentences is presented in Exhibit 6D and Table 6d. Fewer juveniles were sentenced to imprisonment in JO cases in 2010 (108), than in 2009 (125), 2008 (133), and 2007 (132). The volume of incarcerative sentences fell in Brooklyn (from 50 in 2009 to 32 in 2010) and the Bronx (from 45 to 33 in 2010), changed little in Manhattan (from 17 to 18 in 2010), but rose in Queens (from 13 to 25 in 2010). Citywide, 27 percent of incarcerative sentences were for a year or less, considerably lower than the percentages in 2009 (44%) and 2008 (43%). Over a third of incarcerative sentences in 2010 were for one to three years, compared to a quarter of those in 2009. Additionally, 22 percent of incarcerative sentences were for two to six years in 2010, compared to 20 percent in 2009. Incarcerative sentences for juveniles in cases with B-felony conviction charges were longer than those in cases with less severe charges at conviction: 22 percent of incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to 37 percent of those at the C- or D-felony level. Exhibit 6D illustrates that the boroughs differ in the lengths of sentences, however the low volume of juveniles sentenced to incarceration limits meaningful comparisons. Exhibits 6E and 6F, and Tables 6e and 6f, present the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing for each of the convictioncharge-severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, juveniles in cases that reached sentence in the reporting period appeared a median of twelve times in Supreme Court, equal to the median in 2009. A median of over thirteen months elapsed between the first appearance in Supreme Court and sentencing for juveniles sentenced in 2010, up from the median of about twelve months in 2009, and much longer than the median of nine months in 2008. Borough differences in length of case are striking. JO cases reached sentencing much more swiftly in Queens (8 appearances, 234 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of eleven appearances in Brooklyn (339 days), 16 appearances in the Bronx (480 days) and 20 appearances (574 days) in Manhattan. The severity of conviction charge had little effect on the average length of case. JO cases with A- or B-felony charges at conviction took a median of twelve appearances and 402 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, while JO cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction took 12.5 appearances and 419 days to reach sentencing (Exhibits 6E and 6F). It is difficult to summarize patterns in length of case (in terms of median number of appearances or days) by release status at conviction or by release status and conviction-charge severity, either across or within boroughs. Although borough differences exist, the small volume of cases in many categories limits meaningful comparisons. It is important to note that the release status set at conviction may not be the release status set for the juvenile for all of the appearances prior to sentencing. Many juveniles are released to the supervision of community programs at an appearance subsequent to conviction but before imposition of sentence, and these releases are not reflected in this report.

-81Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

10%

11%

80% 48%

44%

46%

39% 54%

60%

44%

45%

40%

50%

48%

20%

36%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=64)

(N=66)

(N=50)

(N=230)

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 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 % 1

1.5%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.0%

0.9%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67.2%

51.5%

44.0%

60.0%

129

56.1%

23 1 16 3

53.5% 2.3% 37.2% 7.0% 100.0%

21 0 11 2

61.8% 0.0% 32.4% 5.9% 100.0%

7 0 14 1

31.8% 0.0% 63.6% 4.5% 100.0%

15 1 13 1

50.0% 3.3% 43.3% 3.3% 100.0%

66 2 54 7

51.2% 1.6% 41.9% 5.4% 100.0%

32.8%

47.0%

56.0%

38.0%

43.0%

8 0 12 1

38.1% 0.0% 57.1% 4.8% 100.0%

11 0 15 5

35.5% 0.0% 48.4% 16.1% 100.0%

11 0 13 4

39.3% 0.0% 46.4% 14.3% 100.0%

6 2 11 0

31.6% 10.5% 57.9% 0.0% 100.0%

36 2 51 10

36.4% 2.0% 51.5% 10.1% 100.0%

100.0%

230

100.0%

31 1 28 4

48.4% 1.6% 43.8% 6.3% 100.0%

33 0 26 7

50.0% 0.0% 39.4% 10.6% 100.0%

18 0 27 5

36.0% 0.0% 54.0% 10.0% 100.0%

22 3 24 1

44.0% 6.0% 48.0% 2.0% 100.0%

104 4 105 17

45.2% 1.7% 45.7% 7.4% 100.0%

-83-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

70% 60%

Probation

Other

65 55

50%

40%

30% 20%

10%

6 1

8 3

7 1

9 4

0% JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=131)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=99)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=230)

-84-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

22 31

80%

31 50

60% 2

100

42 55

40%

6 62

20%

62 50

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=62) (N=2)

(N=48) (N=18)

(N=48)

(N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=16) (N=34)

(N=174) (N=56)

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

1.5%

0.0%

Queens % 1

2.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.9%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

67.2%

51.5%

44.0%

60.0%

129

56.1%

21 1 16 3 41

51.2% 2.4% 39.0% 7.3% 100.0%

20 0 7 2 29

69.0% 0.0% 24.1% 6.9% 100.0%

6 0 14 1 21

28.6% 0.0% 66.7% 4.8% 100.0%

7 0 3 0 10

70.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

54 1 40 6 101

53.5% 1.0% 39.6% 5.9% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 4 0 5

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 10 1 20

40.0% 5.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0%

12 1 14 1 28

42.9% 3.6% 50.0% 3.6% 100.0%

32.8%

47.0%

56.0%

38.0%

43.0%

8 0 12 1 21

38.1% 0.0% 57.1% 4.8% 100.0%

10 0 8 1 19

52.6% 0.0% 42.1% 5.3% 100.0%

11 0 12 4 27

40.7% 0.0% 44.4% 14.8% 100.0%

3 1 2 0 6

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

32 1 34 6 73

43.8% 1.4% 46.6% 8.2% 100.0%

1 0 7 4 12

8.3% 0.0% 58.3% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 9 0 13

23.1% 7.7% 69.2% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 17 4 26

15.4% 3.8% 65.4% 15.4% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0 64

100.0%

230

100.0%

29 1 28 4 62

46.8% 1.6% 45.2% 6.5% 100.0%

30 0 15 3 48

62.5% 0.0% 31.3% 6.3% 100.0%

17 0 26 5 48

35.4% 0.0% 54.2% 10.4% 100.0%

10 1 5 0 16

62.5% 6.3% 31.3% 0.0% 100.0%

86 2 74 12 174

49.4% 1.1% 42.5% 6.9% 100.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 11 4 18

16.7% 0.0% 61.1% 22.2% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 2 19 1 34

35.3% 5.9% 55.9% 2.9% 100.0%

18 2 31 5 56

32.1% 3.6% 55.4% 8.9% 100.0%

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

-86-

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

Not Youthful Offender

100 80

92% 84%

80%

82%

80%

70%

60 40 20

30% 20%

18%

16%

20%

0 JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=131)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=99)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=230)

-87-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Youthful Offender

Not Youthful Offender

100% 18

80%

60% 100

40%

94 83

75 50

20%

Brooklyn JO Part (N=62)

NonJO Part (N=2)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=48) (N=18)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=48) (N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO Part NonJO Part (N=16) (N=34)

JO Part NonJO Part (N=174) (N=56)

-88-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

1.5%

0.0%

Queens % 1

2.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.9%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 1 1

0 0

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

67.2%

51.5%

44.0%

60.0%

129

56.1%

32 9 41

78.0% 22.0% 100.0%

21 8 29

72.4% 27.6% 100.0%

19 2 21

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

9 1 10

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

81 20 101

80.2% 19.8% 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%

15 5 20

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

21 7 28

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

32.8%

47.0%

56.0%

38.0%

43.0%

19 2 21

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

15 4 19

78.9% 21.1% 100.0%

21 6 27

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

61 12 73

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

11 1 12

91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 1 13

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

24 2 26

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

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

0 0 64

100.0%

230

100.0%

51 11 62

82.3% 17.7% 100.0%

36 12 48

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

40 8 48

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

15 1 16

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

142 32 174

81.6% 18.4% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 3 18

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

27 7 34

79.4% 20.6% 100.0%

45 11 56

80.4% 19.6% 100.0%

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

-89-

Exhibit 6D Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Borough: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

12%

22% 21%

80%

31%

20%

42%

60%

44%

36%

32%

28%

40%

12% 12%

15%

20%

17%

20% 30%

22%

22% 17%

16%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=32)

(N=33)

(N=18)

(N=25)

(N=108)

-90-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2010 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 % 1

3.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

4.0%

1.9%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

75.0%

63.6%

38.9%

64.0%

63.0%

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

2 6 6 3 7 24

8.3% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 29.2% 100.0%

1 1 10 2 7 21

4.8% 4.8% 47.6% 9.5% 33.3% 100.0%

0 1 1 3 2 7

0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 100.0%

1 3 6 4 2 16

6.3% 18.8% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0%

4 11 23 12 18 68

5.9% 16.2% 33.8% 17.6% 26.5% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

25.0%

33.3%

61.1%

32.0%

35.2%

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

0 4 3 1 0 8

0.0% 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 4 2 2 11

0.0% 27.3% 36.4% 18.2% 18.2% 100.0%

0 3 7 0 1 11

0.0% 27.3% 63.6% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

2 2 2 1 1 8

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0%

2 12 16 4 4 38

5.3% 31.6% 42.1% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

108

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

2 10 9 4 7 32

6.3% 31.3% 28.1% 12.5% 21.9% 100.0%

1 4 14 4 10 33

3.0% 12.1% 42.4% 12.1% 30.3% 100.0%

0 4 8 3 3 18

0.0% 22.2% 44.4% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

3 5 8 5 4 25

12.0% 20.0% 32.0% 20.0% 16.0% 100.0%

6 23 39 16 24 108

5.6% 21.3% 36.1% 14.8% 22.2% 100.0%

-91-

Exhibit 6E Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

25 20 15 14

12 12

5 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

(N=129)

All Charges

(N=98)

(N=227)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

600 500 400

497 414 406

358 330

469

419

372

300

462 444

402

339

211

219

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=129)

(N=98)

200 100 0

(N=227)

-92-

Table 6e Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 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 Manhattan Bronx N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

70.0

39.0

54.5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

70.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

39.0

0 0 0 2

54.5

11.0

17.0

20.0

6.5

127

12.0

18 6 3 16

11.5 12.0 7.0 9.0

12 4 7 10

15.0 19.0 18.0 20.5

11 2 0 8

22.0 10.5 20.0

9 7 0 14

5.0 7.0 10.5

50 19 10 48

12.0 11.0 15.0 13.5

11.0

12.5

20.5

9.0

12.5

10 5 1 5

10.5 16.0 6.0 14.0

19 2 4 5

14.0 20.5 8.0 13.0

23 3 0 2

22.0 12.0 16.0

7 7 0 5

4.0 12.0 9.0

59 17 5 17

14.0 12.0 8.0 13.0

11.0

16.0

20.0

8.0

227

12.0

28 11 4 21

11.0 13.0 6.5 11.0

31 6 11 16

14.0 19.0 15.0 20.0

34 5 0 10

22.0 12.0 20.0

16 14 0 20

4.5 9.5 9.5

109 36 15 67

12.0 12.0 10.0 13.0

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

-93-

Table 6f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2010 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

1755.0

785.0

1270.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

1755.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

785.0

0 0 0 2

1270.0

322.0

567.0

602.0

201.0

127

371.0

18 6 3 16

377.0 477.5 199.0 236.0

12 4 7 10

504.0 651.0 454.0 557.0

11 2 0 8

706.0 304.5 602.0

9 7 0 14

154.0 229.0 258.5

50 19 10 48

414.5 406.0 358.0 322.0

394.0

415.0

563.5

239.0

419.0

10 5 1 5

389.5 642.0 150.0 416.0

19 2 4 5

618.0 703.0 214.5 374.0

23 3 0 2

580.0 469.0 376.5

7 7 0 5

91.0 419.0 239.0

59 17 5 17

497.0 469.0 211.0 339.0

339.0

479.5

574.0

233.5

227

402.0

28 11 4 21

386.5 549.0 174.5 266.0

31 6 11 16

567.0 651.0 322.0 479.5

34 5 0 10

580.5 469.0 588.0

16 14 0 20

114.5 288.5 254.0

109 36 15 67

462.0 444.0 219.0 339.0

-94-

-95-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 through 2010 are not comparable to those in previous reports. The rates presented in this report are based on all of the juveniles released on bail or on recognizance who were scheduled to appear at least once in Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court (Exhibit 7) prior to disposition during the reporting period. Prior to 2007, the rates had been based on releases at arraignment in Criminal Court or at the first appearance in Supreme Court. Pretrial appearances were scheduled in Criminal Court for a total of 267 released juveniles in 2010. This includes 223 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 44 who were released on bail. Twelve released juveniles (4%) failed to appear as scheduled for at least one appearance in Criminal Court in 2010.18 As Exhibit 7 illustrates, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was higher for juveniles released on recognizance (5%) than for those released on bail (2%). Table 7 presents pretrial FTA by release status in each borough for juveniles scheduled to appear at least once in Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court during the reporting period. Eight of the eleven juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in Brooklyn (8% FTA rate), and the remaining three juveniles had been released in Queens (7% FTA rate). In 2010, pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court for a total of 307 released juveniles. This includes 222 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 85 who were released on bail. Nine percent of the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear in Supreme Court failed to appear at least once. As displayed 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 (11%) than for those released on bail (6%). Although more released juveniles missed a scheduled Supreme Court pretrial appearance in the Bronx (15) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in the Bronx (169), and consequently the FTA rate in the Bronx (9%) was lower than in any other borough except Queens. The FTA rate was around eleven percent for the released juveniles who were scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court and over thirteen percent for the released juveniles scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court, while none of the 18 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 is underscored by the high disposition rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a result of the frequent use of SCIs.

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 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.

-96-

-97-

Exhibit 7 Failure to Appear Rates by Release Status 2010 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

20%

11% 9%

10% 6%

4% 2%

0% Criminal Court (N=223)

(N=44)

(N=267)

Supreme Court (N=222)

(N=85)

(N=307)

-98-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2010 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

106

89.8%

87.2%

84.2%

68.8%

223

83.5%

8 98

7.5% 92.5% 100.0%

0 41

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 32

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 41

6.8% 93.2% 100.0%

11 212

4.9% 95.1% 100.0%

10.2%

12.8%

15.8%

31.3%

16.5%

0 12

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 6

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 6

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 19

5.0% 95.0% 100.0%

1 43

2.3% 97.7% 100.0%

118

100.0%

267

100.0%

8 110

6.8% 93.2% 100.0%

0 47

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 38

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4 60

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

12 255

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

62.7%

136

80.5%

73.3%

33.3%

222

72.3%

6 41

12.8% 87.2% 100.0%

13 123

9.6% 90.4% 100.0%

5 28

15.2% 84.8% 100.0%

0 6

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

24 198

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

37.3%

19.5%

26.7%

66.7%

27.7%

2 26

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

2 31

6.1% 93.9% 100.0%

1 11

8.3% 91.7% 100.0%

0 12

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5 80

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

100.0%

169

100.0%

307

100.0%

8 67

10.7% 89.3% 100.0%

15 154

8.9% 91.1% 100.0%

6 39

13.3% 86.7% 100.0%

0 18

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

29 278

9.4% 90.6% 100.0%

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

-99-

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.