Juveniles Report 11 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 2011

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2012

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 2011

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Jonathan Carmona Senior Research Assistant

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2012

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2012 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2012. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2011. 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

69 70 71 72

-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 ..

75 76 77 76 77 79 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

94 93 95

-vi-

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

-1-

INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report. Serious crime committed by young offenders has attracted considerable attention and 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 2011 (the second half of fiscal year 2011 and the first half of fiscal year 2012). 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.

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 2011 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. 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 fifth 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 sixteen years old or older at arrest but were of JO-eligible age at incident, and who were processed as juvenile offenders. 2. Every arrest with a JO-eligible charge and JO-eligible age-at-offense is now tallied. Prior to the change in methodology, when a juvenile’s arrest was associated with more than one arrest number, only one of the arrests (the one that was docketed, if any were docketed) was included in the report. This change reflects the marked increase in the number of arrests that are assigned more than one arrest number by the NYPD in order to separate the processing of different cases. The result is an increase in the number of juvenile offender arrests tallied in the first section of this report. The data in subsequent sections will not be affected since no docketed arrests were excluded in previous reports. 3. The arrest number is the unit of analysis at all stages of prosecution. Previously, each docket in Criminal Court and each indictment in Supreme Court with a JO-eligible defendant and JO-eligible charge was tallied. 4. Criminal Court and Supreme Court failure-to-appear rates are now based on the number of juveniles released either on bail or on recognizance with at least one court date scheduled in either the lower or the upper court, respectively, during the reporting period. Previous warrant data were based on the number of juveniles released either at Criminal Court arraignment or at the first Supreme Court appearance. Methodological Notes. As noted earlier, CJA's database is limited to the adult court. The subsequent outcome of any case referred or removed to Family Court from adult court is unknown.4 Because of the extremely low number of juvenile offenders arrested and processed in Staten Island (there were 47 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, 2011, through December 31, 2011, there were 1,638 arrests for JO offenses (Exhibit A). More than a quarter of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1,176 cases (72%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, nearly 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 (71%). 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

1,175 (72%) 463 (28%)

Release Decision Released

Detained

Not Applicable

234 (52%)

220 (48%)

Arrests

1,638

CC Arraignments

4556

1 (<1%)

CC Dispositions

455

147 (32%)

SC 1st Appearances

299

10 (3%)

289 (97%)

178 (64%)7

98 (36%)

SC Dispositions

320

92 (29%)

228 (71%)

149(66%)8

77 (34%)

454 (99%)

308 (68%) data not available data not available

The volume of arraignments is 455 and not 463 because the 8 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 276 cases, not 289, because the release status data is not relevant for the cases that were dismissed or transferred to Family Court at the first appearance and the release status is not available for the cases in which a bench warrant was ordered or stayed at the first hearing in the upper court.

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 226, not 228, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence. In two cases the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST

Overall, there were 1,638 arrests for JO offenses in 2011. This is lower than the 1,809 and 1,808 arrests reported for 2010 and 2009, respectively, and 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 43 cases for juveniles who were sixteen years old or older at arrest in 2010 (41 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 2011, second-degree robbery was the most serious charge for nearly two thirds of the juvenile arrests. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for more than three quarters of juvenile arrests. 0 Consistent with previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. Five of the arrests in 2011 were for such a severe charge (e.g., second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, or first-degree arson). After first- and second-degree robbery, the next most common arrest charge was possession of a weapon in the second degree, which accounted for seven percent of the arrests. This was followed by burglary in the second degree, which accounted for five percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period, and possession of a weapon in the third degree, which accounted for three percent. 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 119 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and all of the 47 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 2011 across the boroughs (Exhibit 1A.2). Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in the each borough, accounting for 67 percent of all JO arrests in both Brooklyn and Queens, 65 percent in Manhattan, 61 percent in the Bronx and 55 percent in Staten Island. Arrests for first-degree robbery were also most common in Brooklyn (14%) and Queens (15%), followed by the Bronx and Staten Island (both 13%) and Manhattan (7%). Arrests for either of the weapon charges ranged from only six percent in Manhattan and less than eight percent in Queens to eleven percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx (Table 1a). The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained extremely small in each borough. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the volume is higher but remains small. Murder and attempted murder charges combined accounted for less

-8-

than two percent of the JO arrests in 2011. However, there were nearly twice as many juveniles charged with attempted murder at arrest in 2011 (23) than there were in 2010 (12). Exhibit 1B shows that more than 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 the offense permitted improvement to the selection criteria. The juveniles in JO arrests in Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn (67%, 65% and 64%, respectively) were more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense than were those in Manhattan (59%) or Staten Island (60%). There were 42 JO cases included in the 2011 report in which the juvenile was over sixteen at arrest and therefore would not have been selected for prior reporting periods. There were three JO arrests in this reporting period involving a youth who was thirteen-years-old at the time of the offense. 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 (87% in 2011, ranging from 84% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. The percentage of female arrestees was nine percent in Queens, to twelve percent in Brooklyn, thirteen percent in the Bronx, 18 percent in Manhattan and 19 percent in Staten Island. In 2011, female arrestees were underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories in all boroughs except Manhattan. Citywide, less than eight percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to 14 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, 28 percent of the 2011 JO arrests were docketed, similar to the volume of docketed arrests in 2010 (25%), 2009 (29%), 2008 (30%), and 2007 (28%).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 2011, 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.

-9-

Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 2011 JO Arrests

(N=1638)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2011 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 15%

12% 17%

18% 24%

80%

26% 4%

6% 1% 2%

60% 67%

67% 61%

40%

65% 55%

65%

20% 14%

13%

7% 3%

13%

15%

13% 2%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=613)

(N=406)

(N=292)

(N=280)

(N=47)

(N=1638)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2011 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.7%

0.4%

2 0 0

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 5

0.3%

5 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

112

18.3%

101

24.9%

13.7%

21.8%

19.1%

323

19.7%

5 86 16 0 3 1 0 0 1 0

0.8% 14.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

8 52 26 0 6 6 0 1 2 0

2.0% 12.8% 6.4% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0%

7 21 2 0 1 4 0 5 0 0

2.4% 7.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 1.4% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 41 15 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

0.4% 14.6% 5.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3% 12.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

23 206 60 1 11 13 0 6 3 0

1.4% 12.6% 3.7% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%

501

81.7%

303

74.6%

250

85.6%

218

77.9%

80.9% 1310

80.0%

412 23 50 16

67.2% 3.8% 8.2% 2.6%

247 10 34 12

60.8% 2.5% 8.4% 3.0%

189 33 18 10

64.7% 11.3% 6.2% 3.4%

188 9 14 7

67.1% 3.2% 5.0% 2.5%

26 7 3 2

55.3% 1062 14.9% 82 6.4% 119 4.3% 47

64.8% 5.0% 7.3% 2.9%

613

100.0%

406

100.0%

292

100.0%

280

100.0%

100.0% 1638

100.0%

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

-12-

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough: 2011 JO Arrests 14 and Younger

100% 80% 64%

65%

59%

36%

35%

41%

67%

60%

64%

40%

36%

60% 40% 20%

33%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan Queens

(N=613)

(N=406)

(N=292)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=47)

(N=1638)

(N=280)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2011 JO Arrests

Males

Females

100% 12%

13%

18%

88%

87%

82%

19%

13%

80% 60% 40%

91% 81%

87%

20% 0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=613)

(N=406)

(N=292)

(N=280)

(N=47)

(N=1638)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

1 0 1

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 7

0.4%

1 1 5

14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 100.0%

112

18.3%

101

24.9%

13.7%

20.7%

19.1%

320

19.5%

0 35 77

0.0% 31.3% 68.8% 100.0%

1 30 70

1.0% 29.7% 69.3% 100.0%

1 19 20

2.5% 47.5% 50.0% 100.0%

0 14 44

0.0% 24.1% 75.9% 100.0%

0 2 7

0.0% 22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

2 100 218

0.6% 31.3% 68.1% 100.0%

501

81.7%

303

74.6%

250

85.6%

219

78.2%

80.9%

1311

80.0%

0 185 316

0.0% 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

0 109 194

0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 100.0%

0 99 151

0.0% 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%

0 79 140

0.0% 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

0 17 21

0.0% 44.7% 55.3% 100.0%

0 489 822

0.0% 37.3% 62.7% 100.0%

613

100.0%

406

100.0%

292

100.0%

280

100.0%

1638

100.0%

0 220 393

0.0% 35.9% 64.1% 100.0%

2 139 265

0.5% 34.2% 65.3% 100.0%

1 119 172

0.3% 40.8% 58.9% 100.0%

0 93 187

0.0% 33.2% 66.8% 100.0%

0 19 28

0.0% 40.4% 59.6% 100.0%

3 590 1045

0.2% 36.0% 63.8% 100.0%

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 7

0.4%

5 2

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

112

18.3%

101

24.9%

13.7%

20.7%

19.1%

320

19.5%

104 8

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

96 5

95.0% 5.0% 100.0%

32 8

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

56 2

96.6% 3.4% 100.0%

8 1

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

296 24

92.5% 7.5% 100.0%

501

81.7%

303

74.6%

250

85.6%

219

78.2%

80.9% 1311

80.0%

434 67

86.6% 13.4% 100.0%

258 45

85.1% 14.9% 100.0%

207 43

82.8% 17.2% 100.0%

198 21

90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

30 8

78.9% 1127 21.1% 184 100.0%

86.0% 14.0% 100.0%

613

100.0%

406

100.0%

292

100.0%

280

100.0%

100.0% 1638

100.0%

538 75

87.8% 12.2% 100.0%

355 51

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

241 51

82.5% 17.5% 100.0%

256 24

91.4% 8.6% 100.0%

38 9

80.9% 1428 19.1% 210 100.0%

87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2011 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 17% 26%

26%

32%

28%

31%

80%

60%

83%

40%

74%

74% 68%

72%

69%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=613)

(N=406)

Manhattan Queens (N=292)

(N=280)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=47)

(N=1638)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 7

0.4%

2 5

28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

112

18.3%

101

24.9%

13.7%

20.7%

19.1%

320

19.5%

15 97

13.4% 86.6% 100.0%

39 62

38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

11 29

27.5% 72.5% 100.0%

11 47

19.0% 81.0% 100.0%

2 7

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

78 242

24.4% 75.6% 100.0%

501

81.7%

303

74.6%

250

85.6%

219

78.2%

80.9% 1311

80.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

438 63

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

233 70

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

206 44

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

181 38

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

37 1

97.4% 1095 2.6% 216 100.0%

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

613

100.0%

406

100.0%

292

100.0%

280

100.0%

100.0% 1638

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

453 160

73.9% 26.1% 100.0%

274 132

67.5% 32.5% 100.0%

217 75

74.3% 25.7% 100.0%

192 88

68.6% 31.4% 100.0%

39 8

83.0% 1175 17.0% 463 100.0%

71.7% 28.3% 100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 45510 cases arraigned on JO offenses during the 2011 reporting period, about the same as in 2010 (453) but fewer than in 2009 (520), and much fewer 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. Though the citywide volume varied little between 2010 and 2011, there was a substantial change in some of the borough. The volume of JO arraignments decreased only in the Bronx, from 162 in 2010 to 132 in 2011, a decrease of over 18 percent. However, the volume had increased in the Bronx during the previous reporting period, up from 140 JO arraignments in 2009. In the other boroughs, the increases in 2011 followed previous decreases. The volume of arraignments increased from 73 in 2010 to 89 in 2011 in Queens, following a decrease from 90 in 2009. In Manhattan, the increase from 66 to 75 in 2011 followed a sharp decline from 100 in 2009. The volume in Brooklyn changed little (from 152 to 159), but there were 188 JO arraignments in 2009 in that borough. Brooklyn and the Bronx accounted for 35 and 29 percent of JO arraignments citywide, respectively. Queens accounted for 20 percent and Manhattan just sixteen percent of the citywide volume. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that nearly 80 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 (41%, compared to 13% at arrest), and second-degree robbery charges were more common at arrest (65%, compared to 38% at arraignment). However, the proportion of first-degree robbery charges at arraignment decreased slightly from 42 percent in 2010 (but 38% in 2009) while the proportion of second-degree robbery charges at arraignment increased slightly, from 36 percent in 2010 (but 46% in 2009). 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 widely by borough, as illustrated in Exhibit 2A.2. In 2011, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 27 percent in Manhattan to 39 percent in the Bronx, 44 percent in Queens and 48 percent in Brooklyn. The differences are narrower when first- and second-degree robbery are considered together because the boroughs with the higher proportion of juveniles arraigned on first-degree robbery tend to have lower proportions of juveniles arraigned on second-degree robbery charges. In 2011, Manhattan showed the lowest proportion of juveniles arraigned for first-degree robbery but the highest percent charged with second-degree robbery (43%). First- and second-degree robbery accounted for 75 percent of arraignment charges in Bronx JO cases but accounted for 83 percent 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-

of arraignment charges in Queens JO cases and 85 percent in Brooklyn. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges across the boroughs.11 There was one dismissal at Criminal Court arraignment in this reporting period (data not displayed). Exhibit 2B shows that 48 percent of juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2011, slightly lower than the 52 percent ROR rate in 2010, 50 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in 2008. The citywide decrease in ROR rates at JO arraignments is not reflected equally in each borough. The rate of ROR remained about the same in Queens (41%) and decreased slightly in the Bronx (58%, down from 60%) and Brooklyn (50%, down from 52%). However, the ROR rate decreased markedly in Manhattan in 2011 where it fell to 32 percent from 42 percent in 2010. Typically, if defendants are not released on recognizance, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only 18 juveniles (4%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2011, with very small borough differences: six percent of JO defendants made bail at arraignment in Brooklyn compared to four percent of those in Manhattan, three percent in the Bronx and only two percent in Queens. Juvenile defendants in Manhattan (64%) and Queens (56%) were most likely to be detained at arraignment on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to those in other boroughs. Forty-five percent of juvenile defendants were detained at arraignment in Brooklyn and only 39 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 2011, the ROR rate in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 40 percent (45% in 2010 and 41% in 2009) compared to 59 percent in arraignments for C or D felonies (64% in 2010 and 60% in 2009). Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment persist within charge-severity categories. In arraignments for B-felony charges in 2011, the percentage of defendants released on recognizance was highest in the Bronx (51%), followed by Brooklyn (43%) compared to barely 26 percent in Queens and 24 percent in Manhattan. At the C- and D-felony level, the ROR rate ranged from 60 to 67 percent in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, compared to only 41 percent in Manhattan. Exhibit 2C presents the release information for males and females in Criminal Court JO arraignments. In 2011, 75 percent of females were released on recognizance (a 14 percentage point increase from 2010), compared to 45 percent of males released on recognizance (a 5 percentage point decrease from 2010). 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 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-

population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 2011, more than three quarters of the arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated according to the protocol used for adults. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then 88 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, slightly more than the 85 to 86 percent in 2008, 2009 and 2010. 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 2011, 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 more than nine of every ten of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2011 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, slightly more than in 2008 through 2010. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR (52%) in 2011 were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (43%), as in 2010 and 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 (42% in 2011, 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 2011.

-20-

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2011 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 6%

Robbery 1 41%

Robbery 2 38%

Assault 1 6%

(N=455)

Other 9%

Murder 2 1%

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2011 JO Arraignments Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other 3%

4% 7%

14%

15%

6% 3%

80% 36%

39% 38% 36%

43%

60%

40% 44%

48%

41%

27% 39%

20% 11% 5%

6% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=159)

(N=132)

(N=75)

(N=89)

(N=455)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2011 JO Arraignments

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

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.7%

1.1%

0.7%

2 0 0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

61.0%

56.1%

45.3%

58.4%

257

56.5%

6 77 11 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

3.8% 48.4% 6.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

7 51 7 0 3 4 0 1 1 0

5.3% 38.6% 5.3% 0.0% 2.3% 3.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

8 20 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0

10.7% 26.7% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

5 39 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

5.6% 43.8% 6.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

26 187 26 1 6 6 0 3 2 0

5.7% 41.1% 5.7% 0.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

39.0%

43.9%

52.0%

40.4%

195

42.9%

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

58 1 3 0

36.5% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0%

48 2 8 0

36.4% 1.5% 6.1% 0.0%

32 0 7 0

42.7% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0%

35 0 1 0

39.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

173 3 19 0

38.0% 0.7% 4.2% 0.0%

159

100.0%

132

100.0%

455

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

-24-

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2011 JO Arraignments ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made

80%

Remand 2%

37%

45%

47% 54% 59%

60%

3% 6% 4% 2%

40% 4% 58% 50%

48% 41%

20% 32%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=159)

(N=132)

(N=75)

(N=88)

(N=454)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.7%

1.1%

0.7%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

61.0%

56.1%

45.3%

58.0%

256

56.4%

42 5 50 0

43.3% 5.2% 51.5% 0.0% 100.0%

38 1 33 2

51.4% 1.4% 44.6% 2.7% 100.0%

8 2 22 2

23.5% 5.9% 64.7% 5.9% 100.0%

13 2 35 1

25.5% 3.9% 68.6% 2.0% 100.0%

101 10 140 5

39.5% 3.9% 54.7% 2.0% 100.0%

39.0%

43.9%

52.0%

40.9%

195

43.0%

37 4 21 0

59.7% 6.5% 33.9% 0.0% 100.0%

39 3 16 0

67.2% 5.2% 27.6% 0.0% 100.0%

16 1 22 0

41.0% 2.6% 56.4% 0.0% 100.0%

23 0 13 0

63.9% 0.0% 36.1% 0.0% 100.0%

115 8 72 0

59.0% 4.1% 36.9% 0.0% 100.0%

159

100.0%

132

100.0%

454

100.0%

79 9 71 0

49.7% 5.7% 44.7% 0.0% 100.0%

77 4 49 2

58.3% 3.0% 37.1% 1.5% 100.0%

24 3 44 4

32.0% 4.0% 58.7% 5.3% 100.0%

36 2 48 2

40.9% 2.3% 54.5% 2.3% 100.0%

216 18 212 8

47.6% 4.0% 46.7% 1.8% 100.0%

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2011 JO Arraignments

Remand 2%

ROR 45%

Bail Set/Not Made 49%

Bail Set/Made 4%

Males (N=418)

Bail Set/Not Made 25%

ROR 75%

Females (N=36)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2011 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 %

146

91.8%

123

93.2%

85.3%

96.6%

418

92.1%

69 9 68 0

47.3% 6.2% 46.6% 0.0% 100.0%

71 4 46 2

57.7% 3.3% 37.4% 1.6% 100.0%

16 3 41 4

25.0% 4.7% 64.1% 6.3% 100.0%

33 2 48 2

38.8% 2.4% 56.5% 2.4% 100.0%

189 18 203 8

45.2% 4.3% 48.6% 1.9% 100.0%

8.2%

6.8%

14.7%

3.4%

7.9%

10 0 3 0

76.9% 0.0% 23.1% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 3 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 3 0

72.7% 0.0% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

27 0 9 0

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

159

100.0%

132

100.0%

454

100.0%

79 9 71 0

49.7% 5.7% 44.7% 0.0% 100.0%

77 4 49 2

58.3% 3.0% 37.1% 1.5% 100.0%

24 3 44 4

32.0% 4.0% 58.7% 5.3% 100.0%

36 2 48 2

40.9% 2.3% 54.5% 2.3% 100.0%

216 18 212 8

47.6% 4.0% 46.7% 1.8% 100.0%

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

-28-

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough: 2011 JO Arraignments J5--Recommended

J6--Not Recommended

J7a--Bench Warrant

J7c--Murder Charge

Recommendation Not Available 100% 9%

9% 16%

2% 3%

13%

23%

80%

4% 11%

60%

15%

85%

40%

82%

76%

52%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=159)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=132)

(N=75)

(N=88)

(N=454)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2011 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

135

84.9%

100

75.8%

52.0%

81.8%

346

76.2%

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

74 8 53 0

54.8% 5.9% 39.3% 0.0% 100.0%

63 1 36 0

63.0% 1.0% 36.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 2 24 0

33.3% 5.1% 61.5% 0.0% 100.0%

31 2 39 0

43.1% 2.8% 54.2% 0.0% 100.0%

181 13 152 0

52.3% 3.8% 43.9% 0.0% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

3.1%

4.5%

14.7%

6.8%

6.2%

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

0 0 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 1 1

66.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

5 0 6 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 15 1

42.9% 0.0% 53.6% 3.6% 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

2.5%

3.8%

10.7%

2.3%

4.2%

0 0 4 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 1

20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0%

1 1 2 4

12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 1 10 6

10.5% 5.3% 52.6% 31.6% 100.0%

9.4%

15.9%

22.7%

9.1%

13.4%

5 1 9 0

33.3% 6.7% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 3 9 0

42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 12 0

29.4% 0.0% 70.6% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 5 1

25.0% 0.0% 62.5% 12.5% 100.0%

21 4 35 1

34.4% 6.6% 57.4% 1.6% 100.0%

159

100.0%

132

100.0%

454

100.0%

79 9 71 0

49.7% 5.7% 44.7% 0.0% 100.0%

77 4 49 2

58.3% 3.0% 37.1% 1.5% 100.0%

24 3 44 4

32.0% 4.0% 58.7% 5.3% 100.0%

36 2 48 2

40.9% 2.3% 54.5% 2.3% 100.0%

216 18 212 8

47.6% 4.0% 46.7% 1.8% 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 455 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, slightly fewer than the 465 dockets disposed in 2010 and much fewer than the 574 dockets disposed in 2009 and 642 dockets disposed in 2008. The citywide decrease from the previous reporting period primarily reflects the decrease in dispositions in the Bronx Criminal Court, a decrease of 30 disposed dockets, down to 132 from 162. There was no change in the volume of disposed dockets in Manhattan (75), a small increase in Brooklyn (to 160 from 154), and a larger increase in Queens (to 88 from 74). 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 78 percent of disposition charges, five percent were attempted murder in the second degree, six percent were assault in the first degree, and the remaining ten percent were other JO charges. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 68 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; comparable to the 69 percent in 2010 but higher 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 2011, the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was lowest in Brooklyn (47%, down from 51% in 2010 but up from 35% in 2009), followed by Manhattan (60%, up from 56% in 2010 and 50% in 2009) and Queens (64%, comparable to the 65% rate in 2010 but higher than the 58% in 2009). In the Bronx, all cases were transferred to Supreme Court. 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. Very few Bronx JO cases have been dismissed or transferred to the Family Court since the courts were consolidated. In comparison, in 2004, 22 percent of Bronx JO cases were transferred to the Family Court from Criminal Court and 17 percent of cases were dismissed in Criminal Court. Other Criminal Court dispositions also changed little from 2010 to 2001. The citywide rate of transfer to Family Court remained at around ten percent and the citywide rate of dismissal in Criminal Court was 23 percent (up from 22% in 2010), and these rates also varied little between 2010 and 2011 within the boroughs. Again, Manhattan had the highest rate of dismissal (40%, down from 43% in 2010), followed by Brooklyn (37%, up from 33%) and Queens had the highest rate of transfer to Family Court (19%, down from 22%), also followed by Brooklyn (16% in 2011 and 2010). 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 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-

dispositions across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.13 Typically, charge severity relates to the likelihood that the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. However, in 2011, 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 lower when the charge was more severe. The rate of transfer to the Supreme Court in 2011 was higher for C- or Dfelony dockets (69%) than for A- or B-felony dockets (67%). In 2010, and consistent with the pattern in previous years, 73 percent of cases with A- or B-felony charges were transferred to the upper court compared to 62 percent of those with lesser charges. This decrease in upper court prosecution for A and B felony cases and increase for C- and D-felony cases primarily reflects changes in Brooklyn, the borough that accounts for 35 percent of Criminal Court dispositions, more than any other single borough. In 2011 in Brooklyn, 43 docketed cases (43%) with A- or B-felony charges were transferred to the Supreme Court, compared to 59 cases (60%) in 2010. Similarly, 32 (52%) Brooklyn cases with C- or D-felony charges were transferred to the upper court in 2011, up from only 19 cases (34%) in 2010. The change in the rates of upper-court prosecution of juvenile cases in Brooklyn is probably due to characteristics of the particular cases processed during this reporting period. 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 and the release status set at that arraignment. 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. In general, the medians in 2011 were the same as in the last reporting period. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court was two, the same as the median number of appearances in Criminal Court for A- or B-felony cases and for C- or D- felony cases. The median number of appearances for cases in which the juvenile was released on recognizance at arraignment was two, the same as for cases in which the juvenile was held on bail. However, there are substantial differences in length of case in Criminal Court by borough of prosecution. The median number of appearances in the lower court was highest in Queens (5), compared to a median of three appearances in Brooklyn and two in Manhattan. The median number of appearances was lowest in the Bronx (1), reflecting the (nearly) universal transfer of JO cases to the upper court from arraignment in Criminal Court. Although the median number of appearances in the Criminal Court was stable in 2011, the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court citywide decreased dramatically to only 12 days, down from 25 days in 2010 and from 28 days in 2009. The median number of days decreased for cases with A- or B-felony severity disposition charges to 12 days, from 19 days in 2010 and from over a month in 2009. The decrease in length of case 13

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

-33-

was also large for cases with C- or D-felony severity disposition charges, down to less than two weeks in 2011 from about a month in 2010 and 2009. However, there was little change for juveniles in the two largest release-status categories. Cases where the juveniles were held on bail at arraignment spent a median of only five days in Criminal Court, the same as in 2010, but lower than in 2009 (14). Cases where the juveniles were released on recognizance at arraignment took 38 days to reach disposition in the lower court in 2011 compared to 36 and 40 days in 2010 and 2009, respectively. Although there are large borough differences in length of case, the medians differed little from the previous reporting period. The median number of days in Criminal Court ranged from a high of 83 days in Queens (81 in 2010) and 40 in Brooklyn (the same as in 2010) to only six days in Manhattan (down from 32 in 2010) and zero days in the Bronx since nearly every case disposed in the Bronx Criminal Court is transferred to the Supreme Court at Criminal Court arraignment. 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 2011, compared to 2010, despite the stable number of appearances in the lower court, reflects the relationship between release status and length of case: juveniles in JO cases were more likely to be detained in 2011, 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: 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

100%

3% 6%

10%

16%

14% 9%

6% 5%

80%

39% 36%

37% 36%

39%

60%

40% 44% 47%

41%

29%

39%

20%

9% 2% 1%

7% 1%

5% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=160)

(N=132)

(N=75)

(N=88)

(N=455)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

0.6%

1 0 0

0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

61.3%

4 75 14 0 2 0 0 0 3 0

2.5% 46.9% 8.8% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%

7 51 7 0 3 4 0 1 1 0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

38.1%

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

57 1 3 0

160

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

TOTAL

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.7%

1.1%

0.9%

2 0 0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

4 0 0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

56.1%

46.7%

59.1%

259

56.9%

5.3% 38.6% 5.3% 0.0% 2.3% 3.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

7 22 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

9.3% 29.3% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

6 39 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

6.8% 44.3% 5.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

24 187 29 1 6 6 0 2 4 0

5.3% 41.1% 6.4% 0.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0%

43.9%

50.7%

39.8%

192

42.2%

35.6% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0%

48 2 8 0

36.4% 1.5% 6.1% 0.0%

29 0 9 0

38.7% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0%

34 0 1 0

38.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

168 3 21 0

36.9% 0.7% 4.6% 0.0%

100.0%

132

100.0%

455

100.0%

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Dismissals

Brooklyn (N=160)

Transfers to Supreme Court

16%

Transfers to Family Court

47%

37%

Bronx (N=132)

100%

Manhattan (N=75) Queens (N=88)

19%

Citywide (N=455) 100%

60%

40%

10%

75%

50%

64%

17%

68%

23%

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: 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

80 69%

67%

68%

40 26%

23% 18%

12%

10%

7% 0

A or B Felonies (N=262)

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=193)

(N=455)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

A FELONIES:

0.6%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

B FELONIES:

61.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

48 8 42

49.0% 8.2% 42.9% 100.0%

0 0 74

C OR D FELONIES:

38.1%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

11 18 32

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

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.7%

1.1%

0.9%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56.1%

46.7%

59.1%

259

56.9%

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13 0 22

37.1% 0.0% 62.9% 100.0%

9 11 32

17.3% 21.2% 61.5% 100.0%

70 19 170

27.0% 7.3% 65.6% 100.0%

43.9%

50.7%

39.8%

192

42.2%

18.0% 29.5% 52.5% 100.0%

0 0 58

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

17 0 21

44.7% 0.0% 55.3% 100.0%

6 6 23

17.1% 17.1% 65.7% 100.0%

34 24 134

17.7% 12.5% 69.8% 100.0%

160

100.0%

132

100.0%

455

100.0%

59 26 75

36.9% 16.3% 46.9% 100.0%

0 0 132

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30 0 45

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 100.0%

15 17 56

17.0% 19.3% 63.6% 100.0%

104 43 308

22.9% 9.5% 67.7% 100.0%

-40-

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

6 5 4 3

3 2

2 1 0

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=261)

(N=193)

(N=454)

-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 2011 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

9.0

2.0

0 0 0 1

9.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

2.0

0 0 0 1

2.0

0 0 0 4

2.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

5.0

259

2.0

45 5 48 0

3.0 3.0 2.0 -

38 1 33 2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

10 2 23 1

3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0

13 1 35 2

5.0 6.0 4.0 4.5

106 9 139 5

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

5.0

191

2.0

37 4 20 0

3.0 3.0 2.0 -

39 3 16 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 -

16 1 20 0

2.5 2.0 2.0 -

20 1 14 0

6.0 6.0 4.0 -

112 9 70 0

2.0 3.0 2.0 -

160

3.0

132

1.0

2.0

5.0

454

2.0

82 9 68 1

3.0 3.0 2.0 9.0

77 4 49 2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

26 3 43 3

3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

33 2 49 3

6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0

218 18 209 9

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

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

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR 100

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

49 38 39 30 31

25 5

A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=261)

(N=193)

(N=454)

-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 2011 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

289.0

3.0

14.0

8.5

0 0 0 1

289.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

3.0

0 0 0 1

14.0

0 0 0 4

8.5

58.5

0.0

5.5

77.0

259

12.0

45 5 48 0

94.0 108.0 5.0 -

38 1 33 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 2 23 1

154.5 24.0 5.0 6.0

13 1 35 2

122.0 119.0 57.0 117.0

106 9 139 5

49.0 95.0 5.0 6.0

38.0

0.0

17.0

92.0

191

15.0

37 4 20 0

43.0 39.0 4.0 -

39 3 16 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 -

16 1 20 0

53.5 5.0 5.0 -

20 1 14 0

137.5 166.0 60.0 -

112 9 70 0

30.5 31.0 4.0 -

160

39.5

132

0.0

6.0

83.0

454

12.0

82 9 68 1

88.5 95.0 5.0 289.0

77 4 49 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26 3 43 3

88.0 5.0 5.0 3.0

33 2 49 3

136.0 142.5 57.0 60.0

218 18 209 9

38.5 39.0 5.0 6.0

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 2011 (299) changed little from 2010 (301), but it is lower than in 2009 (335) and much lower than in 2008 (429). The volume of cases arriving in the upper court increase in two boroughs and decreased in two boroughs. The increase was largest in Queens, from 44 cases in 2010 to 57 in 2011 and smaller in Manhattan, from 41 in 2010 to 47 in 2011. The decrease was larger in Brooklyn (down by 14 to 59 cases in 2011) than in the Bronx (down 7 to 136 cases). It is important to remember that the number of cases with a first appearance in Supreme Court from 2007 through 2011 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 nearly three-quarters (75%) of JO cases entering the upper court in 2011, but slightly less than in the previous reporting periods (76% in 2010 and 81% in 2009). First-degree robbery charges made up thirteen percent of all juvenile arrests during 2011, but comprised 37 percent of cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges accounted for a fifth of the JO arrests, but more than half of the cases that reached the Supreme Court (Table 4a). C- or Dfelony charges comprised eight of every ten JO arrests, but less than half of the 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 2011 pled guilty (10%) and 27 percent of juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. Few cases (8) were transferred to the Family Court, and even fewer cases (2) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (55%) 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 (47%), compared to just three cases in Brooklyn, and none in the Bronx or Manhattan. This finding 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-

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 58 percent in Brooklyn, to 51 percent in Manhattan, down to 40 percent in Queens, while none of the juveniles pled not guilty at the first upper court appearance in the Bronx, respectively. On the other hand, most of the cases in the Bronx (92%) were continued at the first appearance compared to 45 percent of Manhattan JO cases, 25 percent of JO cases in Brooklyn and only seven percent of Queens JO cases. Five percent (3 cases) of the Brooklyn JO cases and four percent (5 cases) of Bronx JO cases 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 64 percent of cases. Nearly three of every ten were held on bail and six 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 58 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 75 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 (41%) 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 2011, the highest rate of ROR was in the Bronx (62%), followed by Queens (41%), Brooklyn (38%), and Manhattan (22%). However, juveniles in the Bronx were far less likely to secure release on bail (8%) than those in any other borough (33% in Brooklyn, 28% in Queens, and 13% in Manhattan). When release on bail and on recognizance at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, the overall rates of release were comparable in Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens where they ranged from 68 to 71 percent, but juveniles were released on ROR or on bail in only 36 percent of cases at the first upper court appearance in Manhattan. 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 2011, citywide, it took a median of 14 days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), fewer than in 2010 (18 days). The citywide median number of days did not vary by charge severity (14 days for both B-felony and C- or D-felony cases). Cases in which defendants were released, on recognizance (19.5 days) or bail (15.5 days), or remanded with no bail set (18.5 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 (5 days). The borough differences found in Table 4d were wide. The longest median time from lower to upper court was in Brooklyn (35.5 days, up from 25 days in 2010), followed by 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-

Manhattan, where the median also increased, though slightly (11 days, up from 10). The median number of days from lower to upper court decreased in the Bronx to 5 days (from 11), and remained lowest in Queens (1.5 days down from 2.5 days). A median of zero days in table 4d 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: 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 5%

Robbery 1 38%

Robbery 2 37%

Murder 2 2% Other 13%

Assault 1 6%

(N=299)

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

100%

2% 5%

12% 15%

13%

26% 6%

7% 7%

80%

46% 37%

39%

60%

35%

30%

40% 28% 41%

42%

38%

2% 4%

5% 2%

38%

20% 13%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=59)

(N=136)

(N=47)

(N=57)

(N=299)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2011 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 %

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

1.7%

0.0%

4.3%

3.5%

1.7%

1 0 0

1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

4.3% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

3.5% 0.0% 0.0%

5 0 0

1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

47.5%

58.1%

40.4%

49.1%

154

51.5%

0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 40.7% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7 51 10 0 3 5 0 1 2 0

5.1% 37.5% 7.4% 0.0% 2.2% 3.7% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0%

6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12.8% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.8% 42.1% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

14 112 17 0 3 5 0 1 2 0

4.7% 37.5% 5.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0%

50.8%

41.9%

55.3%

47.4%

140

46.8%

23 1 2 0 4

39.0% 1.7% 3.4% 0.0% 6.8%

48 2 7 0 0

35.3% 1.5% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%

14 1 11 0 0

29.8% 2.1% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0%

26 0 1 0 0

45.6% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

111 4 21 0 4

37.1% 1.3% 7.0% 0.0% 1.3%

100.0%

136

100.0%

299

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Pled Guilty Dismissed

Pled Not Guilty Continued

100%

Transfer to Family Court Bench Warrant 4%

25%

80%

45% 40%

55%

60% 92%

40%

1% 3%

58%

51%

47%

27%

20%

10%

2% 4%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=59)

(N=136)

(N=47)

(N=57)

(N=299)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

A FELONIES:

1.7%

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

0 0 0 1 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

B FELONIES:

47.5%

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

0 0 8 17 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 60.7% 7.1% 3.6% 100.0%

0 2 75 0 0 2

C OR D FELONIES:

50.8%

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

0 3 7 16 1 3

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

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

4.3%

3.5%

1.7%

0 0 0 2 0 0

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

0 0 1 1 0 0

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

0 0 1 4 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

58.1%

40.4%

49.1%

154

51.5%

0.0% 2.5% 94.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 100.0%

0 0 10 9 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 52.6% 47.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 12 13 1

0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 42.9% 46.4% 3.6% 100.0%

0 2 95 38 15 4

0.0% 1.3% 61.7% 24.7% 9.7% 2.6% 100.0%

41.9%

55.3%

47.4%

140

46.8%

0.0% 10.0% 23.3% 53.3% 3.3% 10.0% 100.0%

2 3 50 0 0 2

3.5% 5.3% 87.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 100.0%

0 0 11 13 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 42.3% 50.0% 0.0% 7.7% 100.0%

0 0 1 10 14 2

0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 37.0% 51.9% 7.4% 100.0%

2 6 69 39 15 9

1.4% 4.3% 49.3% 27.9% 10.7% 6.4% 100.0%

100.0%

136

100.0%

299

100.0%

0 3 15 34 3 4

0.0% 5.1% 25.4% 57.6% 5.1% 6.8% 100.0%

2 5 125 0 0 4

1.5% 3.7% 91.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 100.0%

0 0 21 24 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 44.7% 51.1% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0%

0 0 4 23 27 3

0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 40.4% 47.4% 5.3% 100.0%

2 8 165 81 30 13

0.7% 2.7% 55.2% 27.1% 10.0% 4.3% 100.0%

-54-

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

15% 28%

80%

24%

29%

14%

8% 56%

60% 17%

28%

33%

40% 62% 13% 47%

20%

41%

38% 22%

0% Brooklyn (N=52)

Bronx (N=125)

Manhattan (N=45)

Queens (N=54)

Citywide (N=276)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

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

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

1.9%

0.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

51.9%

60.0%

7 9 7 4

25.9% 33.3% 25.9% 14.8% 100.0%

41 7 25 2

54.7% 9.3% 33.3% 2.7% 100.0%

46.2%

13 8 0 3

54.2% 33.3% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

52 20 17 7 8

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

4.4%

3.7%

1.8%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 5

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

42.2%

50.0%

148

53.6%

5 1 11 2

26.3% 5.3% 57.9% 10.5% 100.0%

8 8 10 1

29.6% 29.6% 37.0% 3.7% 100.0%

61 25 53 9

41.2% 16.9% 35.8% 6.1% 100.0%

40.0%

53.3%

46.3%

123

44.6%

37 3 10 0

74.0% 6.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 5 14 0

20.8% 20.8% 58.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14 7 3 1

56.0% 28.0% 12.0% 4.0% 100.0%

69 23 27 4

56.1% 18.7% 22.0% 3.3% 100.0%

100.0%

125

100.0%

276

100.0%

38.5% 32.7% 13.5% 15.4% 100.0%

78 10 35 2

62.4% 8.0% 28.0% 1.6% 100.0%

10 6 25 4

22.2% 13.3% 55.6% 8.9% 100.0%

22 15 13 4

40.7% 27.8% 24.1% 7.4% 100.0%

130 48 80 18

47.1% 17.4% 29.0% 6.5% 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: 2011 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

35 30 25 21

20 20

20 18

18 16

15 15 10 10 5 5

A or B Felonies (N=153)

C or D Felonies (N=123)

All Charges (N=276)

-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 2011 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

22.0

14.0

8.5

14.0

0 0 0 1

22.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

14.0

0 0 0 2

8.5

0 0 0 5

14.0

39.0

5.0

11.0

14.0

148

14.0

7 9 7 4

19.0 46.0 41.0 45.5

41 7 25 2

34.0 4.0 4.0 3.5

5 1 11 2

16.0 10.0 8.0 18.5

8 8 10 1

0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0

61 25 53 9

20.0 10.0 5.0 21.0

32.0

5.0

14.0

0.0

123

14.0

13 8 0 3

28.0 28.5 45.0

37 3 10 0

23.0 4.0 4.0 -

5 5 14 0

11.0 22.0 12.5 -

14 7 3 1

0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

69 23 27 4

18.0 21.0 4.0 38.5

35.5

125

5.0

11.0

1.5

276

14.0

20 17 7 8

23.0 39.0 41.0 43.5

78 10 35 2

26.5 4.0 4.0 3.5

10 6 25 4

13.5 18.0 9.0 15.0

22 15 13 4

0.0 0.0 20.0 1.5

130 48 80 18

19.5 15.5 5.0 18.5

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

-58-

-59-

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION In 2011, 320 cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court citywide, thirteen more than in 2010 but 60 fewer than in 2009. The citywide increase reflects an increase of sixteen disposed cases in Queens and an increase of six disposed cases in the Bronx. However, the volume of disposed cases changed little in Brooklyn (77, down from 78) and decreased in Manhattan (42, down from 50). The 2007 through 2011 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). The most common charge at disposition in the upper court was about equally likely to be first- or seconddegree robbery (38% and 37%, respectively). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for three-quarters of Supreme Court dispositions in 2011. After robbery charges, assault was the most frequent charge, accounting for six percent of upper court dispositions. Only three of the disposed cases had an A-felony disposition charge: one case was disposed with a second-degree murder charge in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens (1% citywide). B-felony charges accounted for 54 percent of disposed cases and C- or D-felony charges accounted for the remaining cases (45%). 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 33 percent in the Bronx and Manhattan to 38 percent in Queens and 52 percent in Brooklyn. Borough differences in the proportion of cases disposed at the second-degree robbery level are also wide: little more than a fifth (22%) of cases in Brooklyn were charged with second-degree robbery at disposition, compared to 31 percent in Manhattan, 42 percent in the Bronx and 48 percent in Queens. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first- or second-degree robbery charges ranges from 64 percent in Manhattan, to 74 and 75 percent in Brooklyn and the Bronx, respectively, and up to 86 percent in Queens. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first-degree assault, which accounted for eight percent of disposition charges in the Bronx but only five percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and less than two percent in Queens. 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, 71 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was highest in Queens (98%), followed by Manhattan (95%), Brooklyn (79%), and the Bronx (47%). The relatively low rate of conviction in the Bronx reflects the consequences of reorganizing the criminal courts in that borough. In 2011, 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 specific serious felony offenses, although the case may be adjudicated in the Family Court instead.

-60-

Juvenile cases disposed in 2011 at the B-felony level were about as likely to yield convictions (72%) than cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (71%), and the differences in conviction rates by charge severity are small in all of the boroughs. In 2011, 226 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing citywide, more than in 2010 (221) but 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 66 percent of JO cases that were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period (compared to 60% in 2010, 65% in 2009, 61% in 2008, and 62% in 2007). Forty-eight percent of juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and 18 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 five 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 29 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 2011, the highest rate of release (either on recognizance or bail) at conviction was in Queens where juveniles were released in more than three quarters (78%) of disposed cases followed by Manhattan where juveniles were released in two thirds (68%) of disposed cases, followed by Brooklyn and the Bronx where juveniles were released in about six of every ten disposed cases. Manhattan juveniles were more likely to be released on recognizance (62%) than were juveniles in any other borough, and juveniles in Queens were more likely to be released on bail (29%) than in any other borough. Juveniles defendants in Brooklyn were more likely to be remanded with no bail set at disposition (39%) than were defendants in the Bronx, Manhattan or Queens (32%, 25% and 19%, 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 53 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 2011, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (93%), followed by Brooklyn (91%), and then the Bronx and Queens (37% and 17%, 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. 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

-61-

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 2011, it took a median of six appearances and 164 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court. JO cases with B-felony charges took seven appearances and 177 days to reach disposition, and JO cases with C- or Dfelony charges took five appearances and 150 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 2011, it took a median of only three and a half appearances to reach disposition in Queens, compared to five in the Bronx, seven in Brooklyn and twelve 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 about a month and a half in Queens, to close to six months in the Bronx and 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). In 2011, length of case varied by release status, but the differences are not as wide as the borough differences discussed above. JO cases with juveniles released on recognizance at the first upper court appearance took a median of five appearances and about five months to reach disposition. When the juvenile was released on bail, the case took a median of one fewer appearances (4) but about half a month longer (164 days). The median number of days to disposition was greater (8) for cases in which the juvenile was held on bail, but the length of case in terms of days was not longer than for their counterparts who were released on bail (164 days). The small number of cases with defendants remanded at the first upper court appearance which reached disposition in Supreme Court in 2011 took longer than other cases: nine appearances and 232 days.

-62-

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 255 days), compared to non-JO Parts (4 appearances and 87 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 lowest in Brooklyn, followed by the Bronx and Queens (both 10, though there were only 11 JO cases disposed in the JO Part in Queens in 2011), and highest in Manhattan (12). Cases took a median of 164 days to reach disposition in the JO Part in Brooklyn, compared to about ten months in Manhattan and Queens, an just over a year in the Bronx.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Assault 1 Murder 2 1% Offenses 6% 3% Other JO Offenses 11% Robbery 1 38%

Robbery 2 37% Att. Murder 2 4%

(N=320)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other JO Offenses

Non-JO Offenses 100%

12%

80%

3% 2%

3% 11%

24% 5%

48%

22% 37%

60%

42%

31%

40% 52%

38%

3% 1%

38%

33%

20%

5% 2%

4% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=77)

(N=137)

(N=42)

(N=64)

(N=320)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2011 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 %

Bronx N

1.3%

1 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

66.2%

2 40 4 1 0 2 0 1 1 0

2.6% 51.9% 5.2% 1.3% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

5 45 11 0 3 3 0 2 1 0

32.5%

17 0 2 0 6

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.4%

1.6%

0.9%

1 0 0

2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

3 0 0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

51.1%

47.6%

48.4%

172

53.8%

3.6% 32.8% 8.0% 0.0% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.7% 0.0%

2 14 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

4.8% 33.3% 4.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0%

5 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.8% 37.5% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

14 123 18 2 4 5 0 4 2 0

4.4% 38.4% 5.6% 0.6% 1.3% 1.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.6% 0.0%

48.9%

50.0%

145

45.3%

22.1% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 7.8%

58 1 6 0 2

42.3% 0.7% 4.4% 0.0% 1.5%

13 1 7 0 0

31.0% 2.4% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%

31 0 1 0 0

48.4% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

119 2 16 0 8

37.2% 0.6% 5.0% 0.0% 2.5%

100.0%

137

100.0%

320

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

No Conviction

100%

5% 21%

29%

80% 53%

60%

95%

98%

79%

40%

71%

47%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=77)

(N=137)

(N=42)

(N=64)

(N=320)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn %

Bronx %

1.3%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0

66.2%

41 10

80.4% 19.6% 100.0%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

1.6%

0.9%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 66.7%

51.1%

47.6%

48.4%

172

53.8%

32 38

45.7% 54.3% 100.0%

20 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

31 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

124 48

72.1% 27.9% 100.0%

32.5%

48.9%

50.0%

145

45.3%

19 6

76.0% 24.0% 100.0%

32 35

47.8% 52.2% 100.0%

20 1

95.2% 4.8% 100.0%

32 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

103 42

71.0% 29.0% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

137

100.0%

320

100.0%

Conviction No Conviction TOTAL

61 16

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

64 73

46.7% 53.3% 100.0%

40 2

95.2% 4.8% 100.0%

63 1

98.4% 1.6% 100.0%

228 92

71.3% 28.8% 100.0%

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

0.0%

Manhattan N %

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

19%

25%

29%

32%

80%

39%

3% 8%

29%

60%

18% 11% 23%

40% 62% 49%

48%

20%

48%

36%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=61)

(N=62)

(N=40)

(N=63)

(N=226)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1.6%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

67.2%

51.6%

50.0%

11 10 0 20

26.8% 24.4% 0.0% 48.8% 100.0%

14 3 2 13

43.8% 9.4% 6.3% 40.6% 100.0%

10 1 1 8

50.0% 5.0% 5.0% 40.0% 100.0%

31.1%

48.4%

11 4 1 3

57.9% 21.1% 5.3% 15.8% 100.0%

16 4 3 7

53.3% 13.3% 10.0% 23.3% 100.0%

100.0%

22 14 1 24

36.1% 23.0% 1.6% 39.3% 100.0%

30 7 5 20

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.4%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

49.2%

124

54.9%

12 10 1 8

38.7% 32.3% 3.2% 25.8% 100.0%

47 24 4 49

37.9% 19.4% 3.2% 39.5% 100.0%

50.0%

50.8%

101

44.7%

15 1 2 2

75.0% 5.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0%

19 8 1 4

59.4% 25.0% 3.1% 12.5% 100.0%

61 17 7 16

60.4% 16.8% 6.9% 15.8% 100.0%

100.0%

226

100.0%

48.4% 11.3% 8.1% 32.3% 100.0%

25 2 3 10

62.5% 5.0% 7.5% 25.0% 100.0%

31 18 2 12

49.2% 28.6% 3.2% 19.0% 100.0%

108 41 11 66

47.8% 18.1% 4.9% 29.2% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status 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: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

100%

Non-JO Part 7%

80%

47% 63%

60%

83% 93%

91%

40% 53%

20%

37% 17%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=77)

(N=137)

(N=42)

(N=64)

Citywide (N=320)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Convicted

100% 89%

86%

87%

80%

60%

53%

38%

40%

35%

32%

20%

15%

10%

12%

6% 7%

0% JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=175)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=145)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Charges (N=320)

-72Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 1

1.3%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

2.4%

Queens % 1

1.6%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.9%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 3

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

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

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

66.2%

51.1%

47.6%

48.4%

172

53.8%

38 4 4 46

82.6% 8.7% 8.7% 100.0%

21 1 5 27

77.8% 3.7% 18.5% 100.0%

19 0 0 19

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

85 5 9 99

85.9% 5.1% 9.1% 100.0%

3 0 2 5

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 100.0%

11 7 25 43

25.6% 16.3% 58.1% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

24 0 0 24

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39 7 27 73

53.4% 9.6% 37.0% 100.0%

32.5%

48.9%

50.0%

145

45.3%

18 6 0 24

75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 0 1 24

95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 100.0%

19 1 0 20

95.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

64 7 1 72

88.9% 9.7% 1.4% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 11 23 43

20.9% 25.6% 53.5% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28 0 0 28

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39 11 23 73

53.4% 15.1% 31.5% 100.0%

100.0%

137

100.0%

320

100.0%

56 10 4 70

80.0% 14.3% 5.7% 100.0%

44 1 6 51

86.3% 2.0% 11.8% 100.0%

38 1 0 39

97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 0 11

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

149 12 10 171

87.1% 7.0% 5.8% 100.0%

5 0 2 7

71.4% 0.0% 28.6% 100.0%

20 18 48 86

23.3% 20.9% 55.8% 100.0%

2 0 1 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

52 0 1 53

98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%

79 18 52 149

53.0% 12.1% 34.9% 100.0%

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

Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

20 16

12 7

8 5 4

8 5

0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=164)

(N=128)

(N=292)

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: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

600

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

598

500 400 300 200

153 177 160

232

210

181 154 164

154 150

100

0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=164)

(N=128)

(N=292)

-7474

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Court Arraignments y Borough g for 2011 JO Supreme p g

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 R d C OR D FELONIES: FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made B Bail il S Sett and dN Nott M Made d Remand ALL CHARGES* CHARGES ROR B il S dM d Bail Sett and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N M di Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N M di Median N M di Median

Queens M di Median

CITYWIDE N M di Median

43.0

53.0

66.5

55.0

0 0 0 2

43 0 43.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

53 0 53.0

0 0 1 1

55.0 78 0 78.0

0 0 1 4

55.0 58 5 58.5

60 6.0

12 0 12.0

30 3.0

159

60 6.0

11 16 14 2

80 8.0 5.5 65 6.5 5.5 55

43 4 20 0

50 5.0 6.5 70 7.0 -

5 2 11 1

80 8.0 11.5 14 0 14.0 9.0 90

8 8 12 2

10 1.0 1.0 55 5.5 7.5 75

67 30 57 5

50 5.0 4.5 70 7.0 9.0 90

70 7.0

55 5.5

11 5 11.5

30 3.0

128

60 6.0

13 6 1 3

8.0 80 55 5.5 70 7.0 2.0

42 2 12 0

4.5 4 80 8.0 80 8.0 -

5 4 11 0

20.0 20 0 75 7.5 12 0 12.0 -

17 1 7 4 1

1.0 10 10 1.0 55 5.5 7.5

77 19 28 4

5.0 0 40 4.0 85 8.5 1.5

6.5

123

6.0

3.0

292

6.0

24 22 15 7

8.0 80 55 5.5 7.0 30 3.0

85 6 32 0

5.0 50 65 6.5 7.5 -

10 6 22 2

11.5 11 5 90 9.0 13.5 31 0 31.0

25 15 17 4

1.0 10 10 1.0 7.0 75 7.5

144 49 86 13

5.0 50 40 4.0 8.0 90 9.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category category. * Excludes the release status the fifirstt appearance iin th the S Supreme C Courtt was nott available because th the case was E l d cases ffor which hi h th l t t att th il bl b was as ttransferred a s e ed to Family a y Court Cou t or o for o which c the t e release e ease status was as not ot app applicable cab e because tthe e case was as d dismissed, s ssed, acqu acquitted, tted, death. 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 2011 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

785.0

1103.0

1480.0

1103.0

0 0 0 2

785.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

1103.0

0 0 1 1

1379.0 1581.0

0 0 1 4

1037.5 1103.0

164.0

176.0

266.0

35.0

159

164.0

11 16 14 2

272.0 178.0 134.5 116.0

43 4 20 0

176.0 274.5 153.0 -

5 2 11 1

179.0 346.0 298.0 263.0

8 8 12 2

0.0 0.0 151.0 311.5

67 30 57 5

153.0 177.0 153.0 232.0

178.0

168.5

316.5

33.0

128

152.0

13 6 1 3

229.0 178.0 136.0 42.0

42 2 12 0

140.5 315.5 215.0 -

5 4 11 0

517.0 255.5 298.0 -

17 7 4 1

33.0 0.0 166.0 0.0

77 19 28 4

154.0 150.0 210.5 3.0

178.0

123

169.0

298.0

41.0

292

160.5

24 22 15 7

229.0 171.0 136.0 42.0

85 6 32 0

161.0 280.5 175.0 -

10 6 22 2

300.0 296.0 298.0 683.0

25 15 17 4

0.0 0.0 166.0 311.5

144 49 86 13

153.5 164.0 181.0 232.0

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: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

8 4

0 A or B Felonies (N=175)

C or D Felonies (N=145)

All Charges (N=320)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

300 250

Non-JO Part

275

255

245

200 150

111 87

100 54 50 0 A or B Felonies (N=175)

C or D Felonies (N=145)

All Charges (N=320)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

64.0

53.0

78.0

64.0

0 1

64.0

0 0

0 1

53.0

0 1

78.0

0 3

64.0

7.0

5.0

10.5

3.0

172

7.0

46 5

6.5 14.0

27 43

10.0 4.0

19 1

12.0 9.0

7 24

10.0 1.0

99 73

8.0 4.0

5.0

12.0

3.5

145

5.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

24 1

5.5 1.0

24 43

12.0 3.0

20 1

13.0 4.0

4 28

10.0 2.0

72 73

9.0 3.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

137

5.0

12.0

3.5

320

6.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

70 7

6.0 14.0

51 86

10.0 4.0

39 3

13.0 4.0

11 53

10.0 1.0

171 149

9.0 4.0

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 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

972.0

1 1103.0

1 1581.0

3 1103.0

0 1

972.0

0 0

0 1 1103.0

0 1 1581.0

0 3 1103.0

196.0

176.0

280.5

43.0

172

177.0

46 5

171.0 763.0

27 43

368.0 114.0

19 1

298.0 263.0

7 24

331.0 0.0

99 73

245.0 105.0

151.0

168.0

298.0

46.5

145

150.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

24 1

154.0 0.0

24 43

373.0 81.0

20 1

311.5 105.0

4 28

306.0 16.5

72 73

275.0 150.0

ALL CHARGES:

178.0

137

169.0

298.0

47.5

320

164.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

70 7

164.0 763.0

51 86

368.0 100.5

39 3

298.0 263.0

11 53

306.0 0.0

171 149

255.0 87.0

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 221 juvenile offenders cases reached sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period, fewer than in 2010 (230), and 2009 (266) but nearly comparable to 2008 (225). Citywide, 42 percent of sentences for juvenile offenders in 2011 were custodial, lower than in 2010 and 2009 (both 47%) and far lower than in 2008 (59%). Custodial sentences include an imprisonment sentence (37%, down from 45% in 2010 and from 41% in 2009) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (5%, up from 2% in 2010 but down from 6% in 2009). In 2011, as shown in Table 6a, sentences in JO cases in Brooklyn were more likely to be incarcerative (52%, about the same as in 2010) than were sentences in JO cases in the other boroughs. The proportion of incarcerative sentences in the Bronx and Queens (39% and 38%, respectively) was far lower than during the previous reporting period (both 50%) while the use of incarcerative sentences in Manhattan changed very little (up to 39% from 36% in 2010). As Table 6a indicates, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence in 2011 was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (52%, about the same as in 2010 but down from 57% in 2009) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (30%, down from 38% in 2010 and 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 2011. Sentences in JO Parts were far more likely to require imprisonment (40%) than were sentences in non-JO Parts (27%). However, “split” sentences (requiring both imprisonment and probation) were far more common among JO cases that reached sentencing in non-JO Parts (14%, compared to only 2%). There was no difference between JO and non-JO Parts in 2011 in the proportion of sentences in JO cases that required incarceration (42%). Exhibit 6B.2 presents the sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts for each borough in 2011. However, the low volume of cases in certain borough-court part categories precludes meaningful comparisons in those boroughs. In Manhattan (2) and Brooklyn (7), sentences were rarely given in non-JO Parts. Furthermore, any citywide differences in types of sentences in the JO and nonJO 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 (60%) of all of the sentences in non-JO Parts in 2011 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

-80-

defendants were granted YO16 status in 88 percent of the sentences during the reporting period (the percentages granted YO status by borough for JO and non-JO Parts combined are not displayed). Juveniles sentenced in the non-JO Parts were more likely to receive YO status (94%) than were their counterparts who were sentenced in JO Parts (86%). Juveniles sentenced in cases in Brooklyn (79%) were less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts in the Bronx (89%), Manhattan (90%) or Queens (96%). 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 2011 (93) than in 2010 (108), 2009 (125), 2008 (133), and 2007 (132). The volume of incarcerative sentences did not fall in Brooklyn (32), but decreased slightly in Manhattan (to 15, from 18 in 2010), Queens (to 19 from 25) and the Bronx (to 27 from 33 in 2010). Citywide, 41 percent of incarcerative sentences were for a year or less, considerably higher than the percentage in 2010 (27%), but nearly as high as in 2009 (44%) and 2008 (43%). One in five incarcerative sentences in 2011 was for one to three years, compared to over a third of incarcerative sentences in 2010 and a quarter of those in 2009. Additionally, the percent of incarcerative sentences for two to six years has varied little, from only 19 percent in 2011 to 22 percent in 2010 and 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: one third of incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to more than half of those at the C- or D-felony level. 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 2010 and 2009. A median of nearly thirteen months elapsed between the first appearance in Supreme Court and sentencing for juveniles sentenced in 2011, up from the median of over thirteen months in 2010 and about twelve months in 2009. Borough differences in length of case are striking. JO cases reached sentencing much more swiftly in Queens (5.5 appearances, 142 days) than in other boroughs. It took a median of nine appearances in Brooklyn (292 days), fifteen appearances in the Bronx (526 days) and 21 appearances (651 days) in Manhattan. The severity of conviction charge had little effect on the average length of case. JO cases with B-felony charges at conviction took a median of eleven appearances and 335 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, while JO cases with C- or D-felony charges at conviction took thirteen appearances and 448 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. 16

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

-81-

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.

-82-

-83-

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment 100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

15%

80% 45% 50%

56%

53% 46%

60% 3%

40%

10% 48%

20%

37%

36%

33%

28%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=62)

(N=70)

(N=39)

(N=50)

(N=221)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 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 %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

1.6%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

74.2%

38.6%

46.2%

27 1 17 1

58.7% 2.2% 37.0% 2.2% 100.0%

14 1 10 2

51.9% 3.7% 37.0% 7.4% 100.0%

8 1 6 3

44.4% 5.6% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0%

24.2%

61.4%

2 1 11 1

13.3% 6.7% 73.3% 6.7% 100.0%

9 3 27 4

20.9% 7.0% 62.8% 9.3% 100.0%

100.0%

30 2 28 2

48.4% 3.2% 45.2% 3.2% 100.0%

23 4 37 6

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

58.0%

120

54.3%

10 0 18 1

34.5% 0.0% 62.1% 3.4% 100.0%

59 3 51 7

49.2% 2.5% 42.5% 5.8% 100.0%

53.8%

42.0%

100

45.2%

6 0 12 3

28.6% 0.0% 57.1% 14.3% 100.0%

4 5 10 2

19.0% 23.8% 47.6% 9.5% 100.0%

21 9 60 10

21.0% 9.0% 60.0% 10.0% 100.0%

100.0%

221

100.0%

32.9% 5.7% 52.9% 8.6% 100.0%

14 1 18 6

35.9% 2.6% 46.2% 15.4% 100.0%

14 5 28 3

28.0% 10.0% 56.0% 6.0% 100.0%

81 12 111 17

36.7% 5.4% 50.2% 7.7% 100.0%

0 0 0

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

70%

Probation

Other

60% 52

50%

40% 28

30%

20%

14 9

10% 2

6 2

0% JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=121)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=100)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=221)

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

100%

Imp. and Probation

6 14

80%

Probation

Other

6 11

14 50

49 14

60%

44 2 2

40%

14 14

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=55) (N=7)

(N=54) (N=16)

(N=37)

(N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=13) (N=37)

(N=159) (N=62)

-87-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 1

1.6%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

74.2%

38.6%

46.2%

58.0%

120

54.3%

24 1 17 0 42

57.1% 2.4% 40.5% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 7 1 20

60.0% 0.0% 35.0% 5.0% 100.0%

7 1 6 3 17

41.2% 5.9% 35.3% 17.6% 100.0%

3 0 6 0 9

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

46 2 36 4 88

52.3% 2.3% 40.9% 4.5% 100.0%

3 0 0 1 4

75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

2 1 3 1 7

28.6% 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 12 1 20

35.0% 0.0% 60.0% 5.0% 100.0%

13 1 15 3 32

40.6% 3.1% 46.9% 9.4% 100.0%

24.2%

61.4%

53.8%

42.0%

100

45.2%

2 0 10 1 13

15.4% 0.0% 76.9% 7.7% 100.0%

8 1 23 2 34

23.5% 2.9% 67.6% 5.9% 100.0%

6 0 11 3 20

30.0% 0.0% 55.0% 15.0% 100.0%

2 0 2 0 4

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 1 46 6 71

25.4% 1.4% 64.8% 8.5% 100.0%

0 1 1 0 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 2 4 2 9

11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 22.2% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 5 8 2 17

11.8% 29.4% 47.1% 11.8% 100.0%

3 8 14 4 29

10.3% 27.6% 48.3% 13.8% 100.0%

100.0%

221

100.0%

26 1 27 1 55

47.3% 1.8% 49.1% 1.8% 100.0%

20 1 30 3 54

37.0% 1.9% 55.6% 5.6% 100.0%

13 1 17 6 37

35.1% 2.7% 45.9% 16.2% 100.0%

5 0 8 0 13

38.5% 0.0% 61.5% 0.0% 100.0%

64 3 82 10 159

40.3% 1.9% 51.6% 6.3% 100.0%

4 1 1 1 7

57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%

3 3 7 3 16

18.8% 18.8% 43.8% 18.8% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 5 20 3 37

24.3% 13.5% 54.1% 8.1% 100.0%

17 9 29 7 62

27.4% 14.5% 46.8% 11.3% 100.0%

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

-88-

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

100 88%

Not Youthful Offender

100%

94%

85%

94%

78%

60 40 22%

12%

15% 6%

0 JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=121)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=100)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=221)

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender 100%

Not Youthful Offender

20 29

80% 50

60% 100

40%

94 86

71 50

20%

Brooklyn JO Part (N=55)

NonJO Part (N=7)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=54) (N=16)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=37) (N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO Part NonJO Part (N=13) (N=37)

JO Part NonJO Part (N=159) (N=62)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 1

1.6%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

74.2%

38.6%

46.2%

58.0%

120

54.3%

31 11 42

73.8% 26.2% 100.0%

16 4 20

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

14 3 17

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

69 19 88

78.4% 21.6% 100.0%

3 1 4

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

6 1 7

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20 0 20

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 3 32

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

24.2%

61.4%

53.8%

42.0%

100

45.2%

13 0 13

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

31 3 34

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

20 0 20

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 4

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

67 4 71

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 9

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 0 17

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 0 29

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

221

100.0%

44 11 55

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

47 7 54

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

34 3 37

91.9% 8.1% 100.0%

11 2 13

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

136 23 159

85.5% 14.5% 100.0%

5 2 7

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

15 1 16

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

37 0 37

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

58 4 62

93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

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

-91-

Exhibit 6D Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Borough: 2011 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%

7% 16%

22% 32%

80%

27% 41%

25%

15%

60%

10%

13%

12%

22%

30% 32%

40%

6% 40% 18% 18%

20%

34%

21% 19% 15%

13% 5%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=32)

(N=27)

(N=15)

(N=19)

(N=93)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT INCARCERATIVE SENTENCES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

A FELONIES:

3.1%

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

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

B FELONIES:

87.5%

55.6%

60.0%

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

1 13 3 1 10 28

3.6% 46.4% 10.7% 3.6% 35.7% 100.0%

3 2 6 1 3 15

20.0% 13.3% 40.0% 6.7% 20.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 5 2 9

11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 55.6% 22.2% 100.0%

0 1 4 4 1 10

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

1.1%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

52.6%

66.7%

0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 100.0%

5 16 14 11 16 62

8.1% 25.8% 22.6% 17.7% 25.8% 100.0%

0 0

C OR D FELONIES:

9.4%

44.4%

40.0%

47.4%

32.3%

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

1 0 1 1 0 3

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

3 2 2 4 1 12

25.0% 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 8.3% 100.0%

0 4 1 1 0 6

0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1 2 0 0 9

66.7% 11.1% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 7 6 6 1 30

33.3% 23.3% 20.0% 20.0% 3.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

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 13 4 2 11 32

6.3% 40.6% 12.5% 6.3% 34.4% 100.0%

6 4 8 5 4 27

22.2% 14.8% 29.6% 18.5% 14.8% 100.0%

1 4 2 6 2 15

6.7% 26.7% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 100.0%

6 2 6 4 1 19

31.6% 10.5% 31.6% 21.1% 5.3% 100.0%

15 23 20 17 18 93

16.1% 24.7% 21.5% 18.3% 19.4% 100.0%

-93-

Exhibit 6E Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

25 20

18 14

13 11 11

14 12 12 12 10

5 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=121)

(N=98)

(N=219)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

600 500

473

453

413 373

400 300

280

339 277

353

448

312

462 311

386

352 308

200 100 0 A or B Felonies (N=121)

C or D Felonies (N=98)

All Charges (N=219)

-94-

Table 6e Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 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

67.0

0 0 0 1

67.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

67.0

9.0

16.0

18.0

5.0

120

11.0

14 10 0 22

12.5 6.5 8.0

9 4 4 10

16.0 14.5 12.0 19.0

9 1 0 8

29.0 18.0 14.5

13 9 1 6

4.0 5.0 15.0 6.5

45 24 5 46

14.0 9.0 13.0 10.5

9.0

15.0

22.0

6.0

13.0

7 5 0 3

10.0 12.0 6.0

23 4 8 6

15.0 16.5 12.5 16.0

13 1 0 7

22.0 8.0 24.0

12 5 1 3

6.0 6.0 5.0 10.0

55 15 9 19

13.0 12.0 9.0 18.0

9.0

15.0

21.0

5.5

219

12.0

21 15 0 26

12.0 8.0 8.0

32 8 12 16

15.0 14.5 12.0 19.0

22 2 0 15

24.5 13.0 18.0

25 14 2 9

4.0 5.5 10.0 7.0

100 39 14 66

14.0 10.0 12.0 11.5

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

-95-

Table 6f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

1051.0

0 0 0 1

1051.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

1051.0

271.0

550.0

554.5

152.0

120

335.0

14 10 0 22

390.0 227.0 227.5

9 4 4 10

589.0 546.0 358.5 632.0

9 1 0 8

833.0 563.0 444.5

13 9 1 6

99.0 198.0 373.0 156.5

45 24 5 46

453.0 280.0 373.0 275.0

301.0

484.0

686.0

121.0

448.5

7 5 0 3

301.0 345.0 94.0

23 4 8 6

533.0 609.5 398.0 382.5

13 1 0 7

686.0 441.0 784.0

12 5 1 3

168.5 121.0 105.0 190.0

55 15 9 19

473.0 353.0 312.0 413.0

292.5

526.0

651.0

142.0

219

386.0

21 15 0 26

388.0 311.0 211.5

32 8 12 16

569.5 546.0 358.5 543.0

22 2 0 15

689.5 502.0 546.0

25 14 2 9

99.0 165.0 239.0 161.0

100 39 14 66

462.0 311.0 352.0 308.5

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 through 2011 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 209 released juveniles in 2011. This includes 172 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 37 who were released on bail. Four released juveniles (2.3%) failed to appear as scheduled for at least one appearance in Criminal Court in 2011.17 As Exhibit 7 illustrates, the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was about the same for juveniles released on recognizance (2.3%) as for those released on bail (2.7%). 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. Three of the juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in Queens (6.7% FTA rate), and one had been released in Manhattan (3.0% FTA rate). In 2011, pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court for a total of 329 released juveniles. This includes 231 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 98 who were released on bail. More than eight 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 (10.8%) than for those released on bail (3.1%). Although more released juveniles missed a scheduled Supreme Court pretrial appearance in the Bronx (13) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in the Bronx (189), and consequently the FTA rate in the Bronx (6.9%) was not the highest across the boroughs. Instead, the juveniles in Manhattan were most likely to miss a scheduled appearance in the upper court (24%), compared to less than five percent in Queens and Brooklyn. The low volume of Queens cases with released juveniles scheduled for predisposition appearances in Supreme Court underscores the high disposition rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a result of the frequent use of SCIs. It is also important to remember that these FTA rates reflect appearances scheduled prior to the disposition of the JO case and do not include appearances scheduled after conviction but prior to sentencing. 17

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

-98-

-99-

Exhibit 7 Failure to Appear Rates by Release Status 2011 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

15% 11% 8%

3% 2%

0% Criminal Court (N=172)

(N=37)

(N=209)

Supreme Court (N=231)

(N=98)

(N=329)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2011 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

86.2%

94.3%

69.2%

172

82.3%

0 94

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

1 32

3.0% 97.0% 100.0%

3 42

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

4 168

2.3% 97.7% 100.0%

13.8%

5.7%

30.8%

17.7%

1 14

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

0 0

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 20

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 36

2.7% 97.3% 100.0%

109

100.0%

209

100.0%

1 108

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

0 0

1 34

2.9% 97.1% 100.0%

3 62

4.6% 95.4% 100.0%

5 204

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

58.3%

146

77.2%

68.9%

52.2%

231

70.2%

3 39

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

11 135

7.5% 92.5% 100.0%

10 21

32.3% 67.7% 100.0%

1 11

8.3% 91.7% 100.0%

25 206

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

41.7%

22.8%

31.1%

47.8%

29.8%

0 30

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 41

4.7% 95.3% 100.0%

1 13

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

0 11

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 95

3.1% 96.9% 100.0%

100.0%

189

100.0%

329

100.0%

3 69

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

13 176

6.9% 93.1% 100.0%

11 34

24.4% 75.6% 100.0%

1 22

4.3% 95.7% 100.0%

28 301

8.5% 91.5% 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

-101-

APPENDIX A JUVENILE OFFENSES

Offense

Penal Law

Felony Class

Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree Arson in the first degree Arson in the second degree Assault in the first degree Burglary in the first degree Burglary in the second degree Kidnapping in the first degree Attempted kidnapping in the first degree Possession of a weapon in the second degree Possession of a weapon in the third degree Manslaughter in the first degree Murder in the second degree

130.70 150.20 150.15 120.10 (1) (2) 140.30 140.25 (1) 135.25 110/135.25 265.03* 265.02 (4)* 125.20 125.25 (1) (2) 125.25 (3)** 110/125.25 130.35 (1) (2) 160.15 160.10 (2) 130.50 (1) (2)

B A B B B C A B C D B A A B B B C B

Attempted murder in the second degree Rape in the first degree Robbery in the first degree Robbery in the second degree Sodomy in the first degree

Defendant Age 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15

* Added in November 1998, but only where the weapon is possessed on school grounds. ** But only where the underlying crime is also a JO offense.