Juveniles Report 12 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 2012

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

November 2013

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 2012

Marian Gewirtz Project Director

Annabel Mireles Research Assistant

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2013

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

ď&#x192;Ł 2013 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2013. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2012. 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 2012 .................................................................... 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, 2012, (the second half of fiscal year 2012 and the first half of fiscal year 2013). 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. 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 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.

-2-

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 sixteen2 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- or C-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 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05 which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required. 2 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree, a D felony, was repealed effective November, 2006, and is now replaced by 265.03 (3), possession of a weapon in the second degree, a C felony. 3

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

-3-

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 2012 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. 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 sixth in the series to reflect the improved methodology.

-4-

1. Juvenile offenders are 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 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 44 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, 2012, through December 31, 2012, there were 1,234 arrests for JO offenses (Exhibit A). More than a quarter of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;333 cases (73%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, nearly two thirds were transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (79%). 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)

Release Decision

Out

Retained

Released

Detained

Arrests

1,234

901 (73%)

333 (27%)

Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

3236

3 (<1%)

320 (99%)

180 (56%)

140 (44%)

CC Dispositions

315

108 (34%)

SC 1st Appearances

220

13 (6%)

207 (94%)

125 (62%)7

77 (38%)

SC Dispositions

247

53 (21%)

194 (79%)

117 (61%)8

75 (39%)

207 (66%) data not available data not available

The volume of arraignments is 323 and not 333 because the 10 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 202 cases, not 220, 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 192, not 194, 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 1,234 arrests for JO offenses in 2012. This is lowest JO arrest volume in this reporting series. However, JO arrest volume as tallied for the 2007 to 2011 reports did not reflect the repeal of 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree, in November, 2006. Therefore, the reports erroneously included juveniles charged with that offense at arrest. Furthermore, since juveniles were criminally responsible for possession of a weapon only when the weapon was possessed on school grounds but the CJA database does not reflect the location of the offense nor the penal law subsection, juveniles charged with any of the 265.02 subsections at arrest were tallied in the reports. The 1,638 arrests for JO offenses reported in 2011 included 49 juveniles charged with 265.02 who should not have been included. The correct volume of arrests for JO offenses in 2011 is 1,589. The volume of arrests for the repealed offense was about the same during the previous reporting periods. The correct numbers of arrests for JO offenses for 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 are 1,759, 1,747, 2,180, and 1,918. The error does not affect data in subsequent sections of the reports since no juveniles in docketed cases were charged with the repealed penal law subsection. The current volume of JO arrests remains lower than in any previous year, even after correcting for the erroneous inclusion of 265.02 arrests. The 2012 volume is little more than half the peak volume of roughly 2,400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. Exhibit 1A.1 and Table 1a indicate that, in 2012, 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. Consistent with previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. Three of the arrests in 2012 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 nine percent of the arrests. This was followed by burglary in the second degree, which accounted for six percent of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. Type of offense at arrest varied somewhat in 2012 across the boroughs (Exhibit 1A.2). Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in the each borough, accounting for six of every ten JO arrests in the Bronx, two thirds of those in Brooklyn and Queens, seven of every ten in Manhattan and three quarters of those in Staten Island. Arrests for first-degree robbery were most common in Brooklyn (13%) and the Bronx (12%), followed by the Queens (10%), Manhattan (6%) and Staten Island (2%). Arrests for possession of a weapon ranged from only two percent in Staten Island, to seven percent in Manhattan, eight percent in Brooklyn and eleven percent in both Queens 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 than two percent of the JO arrests in 2012. 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. The juveniles in JO arrests in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Manhattan (64%, 63% and 63%, respectively) were more likely to be fifteen years old at the time of the offense than were those in Queens (56%) or Staten Island (36%). There were 53 JO cases included in the 2012 report in which the juvenile was sixteen or older at arrest was younger

-8-

than sixteen at the time of the offense. 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 except Staten Island, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds accounted for more JO arrests than did younger arrestees. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (84% in 2012, ranging from 84% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. The percentage of female arrestees was fourteen percent in the Bronx, fifteen percent in Brooklyn, 17 percent in Queens, 18 percent in Manhattan, and 20 percent in Staten Island. In 2012, female arrestees were only narrowly underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories. Citywide, thirteen percent of the juveniles with B-felony arrest charges were female, compared to sixteen percent of the C- or Dfelony arrests (Table 1c). In both Manhattan and Queens, female juveniles account for a larger proportion of B-felony JO arrests (20% and 19%) compared to C-felony JO arrests (18% and 17%). Overall, JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D and Table 1d indicate, 27 percent of the 2012 JO arrests were docketed, similar to the volume of docketed arrests in 2011 (28%), 2010 (25%), 2009 (29%), 2008 (30%), and 2007 (28%).9 The erroneous inclusion of juveniles charged at arrest in 2007 through 2011 with 265.02, the weapon possession charge in which the JO-eligible subsection was repealed, overcounts the volume of non-docketed cases in those reporting years since no juvenile case with that offense could be docketed. However, so few juvenile cases were mistakenly tallied that correcting the tallies does not change the reported percentages of docketed arrests. 9 The arrests that are not docketed include those voided by the police or declined prosecution (DP), as well as prosecutorial transfers to Family Court.

-9Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 2012 JO Arrests

Other 18%

Murder 2 & Att. Murder 2 Robbery 1 2% 11%

Assault 1 4%

Robbery 2 66%

(N=1,234)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2012 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

21%

20%

Other

100% 14%

19%

17%

18%

80%

60% 67% 60%

40%

66%

67% 70%

75%

20% 13%

12%

6% 1%

11%

10% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=463)

(N=306)

(N=168)

(N=253)

(N=44)

(N=1234)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2012 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 FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03)

TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

1.0%

3 0 0

1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

3 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

21.0%

24.5%

15.5%

12.6%

9.1%

234

19.0%

8 61 20 0 1 5 0 0 2 0

1.7% 13.2% 4.3% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

4 36 20 0 10 5 0 0 0 0

1.3% 11.8% 6.5% 0.0% 3.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 11 8 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

1.2% 6.5% 4.8% 0.0% 1.8% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 25 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

0.8% 9.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0.0% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16 134 52 0 15 15 0 0 2 0

1.3% 10.9% 4.2% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

366

79.0%

228

74.5%

142

84.5%

221

87.4%

90.9%

997

80.8%

308 19 39

66.5% 4.1% 8.4%

185 9 34

60.5% 2.9% 11.1%

118 12 12

70.2% 7.1% 7.1%

169 25 27

66.8% 9.9% 10.7%

33 6 1

75.0% 13.6% 2.3%

813 71 113

65.9% 5.8% 9.2%

463

100.0%

306

100.0%

168

100.0%

253

100.0%

100.0% 1234

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: 2012 JO Arrests 14 and Younger

100% 36%

80% 63%

64%

56%

63%

61%

60% 40% 64%

20%

37%

36%

44%

37%

39%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=463)

(N=306)

Manhattan Queens (N=168)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=44)

(N=1234)

(N=253)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2012 JO Arrests

Males

Females

100% 15%

14%

18%

17%

20%

16%

85%

86%

82%

83%

80%

84%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=463)

(N=306)

(N=168)

(N=253)

(N=44)

(N=1234)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

1.0%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.0%

23.9%

14.9%

12.6%

9.1%

231

18.7%

0 36 61

0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

0 24 49

0.0% 32.9% 67.1% 100.0%

0 9 16

0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 100.0%

0 15 17

0.0% 46.9% 53.1% 100.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 86 145

0.0% 37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

366

79.0%

230

75.2%

143

85.1%

221

87.4%

90.9%

1000

81.0%

0 133 233

0.0% 36.3% 63.7% 100.0%

0 88 142

0.0% 38.3% 61.7% 100.0%

0 53 90

0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

0 97 124

0.0% 43.9% 56.1% 100.0%

0 26 14

0.0% 65.0% 35.0% 100.0%

0 397 603

0.0% 39.7% 60.3% 100.0%

463

100.0%

306

100.0%

168

100.0%

253

100.0%

1234

100.0%

0 169 294

0.0% 36.5% 63.5% 100.0%

0 112 194

0.0% 36.6% 63.4% 100.0%

0 62 106

0.0% 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

0 112 141

0.0% 44.3% 55.7% 100.0%

0 28 16

0.0% 63.6% 36.4% 100.0%

0 483 751

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

1.0%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

0 0

CITYWIDE % 3

0.2%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21.0%

23.9%

14.9%

12.6%

9.1%

231

18.7%

87 10

89.7% 10.3% 100.0%

64 9

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

20 5

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

26 6

81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

4 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

201 30

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

366

79.0%

230

75.2%

143

85.1%

221

87.4%

90.9% 1000

81.0%

308 58

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

196 34

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

117 26

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

184 37

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

31 9

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

836 164

83.6% 16.4% 100.0%

463

100.0%

306

100.0%

168

100.0%

253

100.0%

100.0% 1234

100.0%

395 68

85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

263 43

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

137 31

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

210 43

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

35 9

79.5% 1040 20.5% 194 100.0%

84.3% 15.7% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2012 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100% 20%

23%

26%

27%

34%

80%

60%

80%

40%

77%

74%

73%

66%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=463)

(N=306)

Manhattan Queens (N=168

(N=253)

Staten Is. (N=44)

Citywide (N=1234)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Arrests

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

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

1.0%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0

Staten Island N % 0

0.0%

0 0

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

21.0%

23.9%

14.9%

12.6%

9.1%

231

18.7%

19 78

19.6% 80.4% 100.0%

22 51

30.1% 69.9% 100.0%

11 14

44.0% 56.0% 100.0%

7 25

21.9% 78.1% 100.0%

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

62 169

26.8% 73.2% 100.0%

366

79.0%

230

75.2%

143

85.1%

221

87.4%

90.9% 1000

81.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

318 48

86.9% 13.1% 100.0%

179 51

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

114 29

79.7% 20.3% 100.0%

195 26

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

31 9

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

837 163

83.7% 16.3% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

463

100.0%

306

100.0%

168

100.0%

253

100.0%

100.0% 1234

100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

337 126

72.8% 27.2% 100.0%

203 103

66.3% 33.7% 100.0%

125 43

74.4% 25.6% 100.0%

202 51

79.8% 20.2% 100.0%

34 10

77.3% 22.7% 100.0%

73.0% 27.0% 100.0%

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C FELONIES:

901 333

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 32310 cases arraigned on JO offenses during the 2012 reporting period, far fewer than the 455 arraigned in 2011 and the 453 arraigned in 2010. The volume of arraigned JO cases was substantially higher prior to 2000, fluctuating between 834 and 923 between 1996 and 1999. The citywide decrease is reflected in each borough, though the decrease is smaller in Brooklyn and the Bronx (21% and 22%) than in Queens and Manhattan (42% and 43%). The borough composition of JO arraignments in 2012 reflects more cases from Brooklyn and the Bronx and fewer from Queens and Manhattan than in the previous reporting period. Brooklyn and the Bronx accounted for 39 and 32 percent of JO arraignments citywide, respectively while Queens accounted for sixteen percent and Manhattan just thirteen percent of the citywide volume. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that nearly eight of every ten JO cases in adult court had a robbery charge at arraignment. The proportion of first- and second-degree robbery charges at arraignment was slightly less than the proportion of robbery charges in the JO arrest population. First-degree robbery charges were especially more prevalent among arraigned cases (42%, compared to 11% at arrest), and second-degree robbery charges were more common at arrest (66%, compared to 35% at arraignment). The proportion of first- and second-degree robbery charges at arraignment changed little from the previous reporting period. 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, roughly 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-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 Table 2a. In 2012, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from only 28 percent in Manhattan to 41 percent in Queens, 43 percent in the Bronx, and 46 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 2012, Manhattan showed the lowest proportion of juveniles arraigned for first-degree robbery but the percent charged with second-degree robbery (42%) in that borough was second only to Queens (45%). In contrast, only 32 percent of JO arraignments in Brooklyn and the Bronx were for seconddegree robbery. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for 70 percent of arraignment charges in Manhattan JO cases, and 75 percent and 78 percent in the Bronx and 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-

Brooklyn, but accounted for 86 percent of arraignment charges in Queens JO cases. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges across the boroughs.11 There were three dismissals at Criminal Court arraignment in this reporting period (data not displayed). Exhibit 2B shows that 55 percent of juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2012, higher than the ROR rate in recent reporting years (48% in 2011, 52% in 2010, 50% in 2009 and 49% in 2008). The citywide increase in ROR rates at JO arraignments is not reflected equally in each borough. The rate of ROR increased in Queens (47%, up from 41%) and Manhattan (45%, up from 32%) and increased dramatically in the Bronx (74%, up from 58%), However, the ROR rate decreased slightly in Brooklyn (46%, down from 50%). Typically, if defendants are not released on recognizance, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only four juveniles (1%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2012, even fewer than the 18 juveniles (4%) released on bail at arraignment in 2011. Half of juvenile defendants in Manhattan (50%) and 53 percent in both Queens and Brooklyn were detained at arraignment on bail or remanded with no bail set, compared to only a quarter of those 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 2012, the ROR rate in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 47 percent (40% in 2011, 45% in 2010 and 41% in 2009) compared to 67 percent in arraignments for C or (59% in 2011, 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 2012, the percentage of defendants released on recognizance was highest in the Bronx (64%), compared to Manhattan (41%), Queens (40%), and Brooklyn (37%). At the C-felony level, the ROR rate was again highest in the Bronx (90%), compared to 64 percent in Brooklyn, 54 percent in Queens and only 48 percent in Manhattan. Exhibit 2C presents the release information for males and females in Criminal Court JO arraignments. In 2012, 69 percent of females were released on recognizance (a 6 percentage point decrease from 2011 though the combined ROR rate increased), compared to 52 percent of males (a 7 percentage point increase from 2011). The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there were too few female juveniles arraigned in adult court to permit meaningful analysis of release rates by charge severity. Table 2d and Exhibit 2D display the release status set at arraignment by juvenile recommendation category, according to the juvenile release recommendation system, which was first implemented for testing in April 1996. Prior to that date, the interview data for juvenile defendants were provided without a release recommendation because the community ties criteria for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment 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-

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 2012, more than eight of every ten 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 nine of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, slightly more than the 85 to 88 percent in 2008 to 2011. 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 2012, and one juvenile was excluded from recommendation for ROR because of an outstanding bench warrant. If the juveniles in the “Murder Charge” and bench warrant categories are also subtracted from the calculation base, then 95 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2012 qualified for a recommendation for ROR, slightly more than in 2008 through 2011. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR in 2012 were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (60%, compared to 54%). However, only thirteen juveniles arraigned in 2012 were not recommended for release on recognizance in accordance with the juvenile release recommendation assessment.

-20-

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2012 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 7%

Robbery 1 42%

Robbery 2 35%

Assault 1 7%

Other 8%

(N=323)

Murder 2 <1%

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2012 JO Arraignments Murder 2 Robbery 2 100%

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

6% 2%

10%

8% 7%

23% 10%

80% 2% 32%

45%

35%

32%

60% 42%

40% 46% 42% 41%

43%

20%

28%

10%

5% 1%

7% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=126)

(N=103)

(N=43)

(N=51)

(N=323)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2012 JO Arraignments

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

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03)

TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

1.0%

1 0 0

1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 1

0.3%

1 0 0

0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

66.7%

60.2%

39.5%

49.0%

188

58.2%

12 58 12 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

9.5% 46.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

5 44 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

4.9% 42.7% 9.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 12 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

4.7% 27.9% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.9% 41.2% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

22 135 24 0 2 3 0 0 2 0

6.8% 41.8% 7.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

33.3%

38.8%

60.5%

51.0%

134

41.5%

40 0 2

31.7% 0.0% 1.6%

33 0 7

32.0% 0.0% 6.8%

18 2 6

41.9% 4.7% 14.0%

23 3 0

45.1% 5.9% 0.0%

114 5 15

35.3% 1.5% 4.6%

126

100.0%

103

100.0%

323

100.0%

-24-

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2012 JO Arraignments ROR

Bail Set and Made

100%

Bail Set and Not Made 2%

Remand 2%

23%

80% 42% 1%

48%

53%

50%

60% 1% 5%

40% 74%

55% 46%

47%

45%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=126)

(N=103)

(N=40)

(N=51)

(N=320)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 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 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 % 1

1.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

66.7%

60.2%

42.5%

49.0%

188

58.8%

31 1 48 4

36.9% 1.2% 57.1% 4.8% 100.0%

40 1 21 0

64.5% 1.6% 33.9% 0.0% 100.0%

7 2 7 1

41.2% 11.8% 41.2% 5.9% 100.0%

10 0 15 0

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

88 4 91 5

46.8% 2.1% 48.4% 2.7% 100.0%

33.3%

38.8%

57.5%

51.0%

131

40.9%

27 0 15 0

64.3% 0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 100.0%

36 0 3 1

90.0% 0.0% 7.5% 2.5% 100.0%

11 0 12 0

47.8% 0.0% 52.2% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 12 0

53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 0.0% 100.0%

88 0 42 1

67.2% 0.0% 32.1% 0.8% 100.0%

126

100.0%

103

100.0%

320

100.0%

58 1 63 4

46.0% 0.8% 50.0% 3.2% 100.0%

76 1 24 2

73.8% 1.0% 23.3% 1.9% 100.0%

18 2 19 1

45.0% 5.0% 47.5% 2.5% 100.0%

24 0 27 0

47.1% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

176 4 133 7

55.0% 1.3% 41.6% 2.2% 100.0%

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2012 JO Arraignments

Remand 2%

Bail Set/Not Made 44%

ROR 52%

Bail Set/Made 2%

Males (N=271)

Bail Set/Not Made 29%

Remand 2%

ROR 69%

Females (N=49)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2012 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 %

109

86.5%

83.5%

82.5%

84.3%

271

84.7%

48 1 56 4

44.0% 0.9% 51.4% 3.7% 100.0%

61 1 22 2

70.9% 1.2% 25.6% 2.3% 100.0%

15 2 16 0

45.5% 6.1% 48.5% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 25 0

41.9% 0.0% 58.1% 0.0% 100.0%

142 4 119 6

52.4% 1.5% 43.9% 2.2% 100.0%

13.5%

16.5%

17.5%

15.7%

15.3%

10 0 7 0

58.8% 0.0% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0 2 0

88.2% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3 1

42.9% 0.0% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0%

6 0 2 0

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

34 0 14 1

69.4% 0.0% 28.6% 2.0% 100.0%

126

100.0%

103

100.0%

320

100.0%

58 1 63 4

46.0% 0.8% 50.0% 3.2% 100.0%

76 1 24 2

73.8% 1.0% 23.3% 1.9% 100.0%

18 2 19 1

45.0% 5.0% 47.5% 2.5% 100.0%

24 0 27 0

47.1% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

176 4 133 7

55.0% 1.3% 41.6% 2.2% 100.0%

Note: The numbers in bold are the gender subtotals for each borough and citywide. The percentages in bold are the proportions each gender represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed at arraignment.

-28-

Exhibit 2D Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough: 2012 JO Arraignments J5--Recommended

J6--Not Recommended

J7a--Bench Warrant

J7c--Murder Charge

Recommendation Not Available 100%

4% 4%

19%

5% 1% 4%

80%

10%

5% 5%

60%

88%

84%

40%

77%

72%

20%

0% Brooklyn (N=126)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=103)

(N=40)

(N=51)

(N=320)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2012 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

111

88.1%

88.3%

75.0%

76.5%

271

84.7%

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

58 1 50 2

52.3% 0.9% 45.0% 1.8% 100.0%

71 1 19 0

78.0% 1.1% 20.9% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 16 0

46.7% 0.0% 53.3% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 20 0

48.7% 0.0% 51.3% 0.0% 100.0%

162 2 105 2

59.8% 0.7% 38.7% 0.7% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

1.6%

3.9%

5.0%

9.8%

4.1%

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

0 0 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 1 0

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 2 0

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 5 0

53.8% 7.7% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.0%

0.3%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0

6.3%

3.9%

5.0%

5.9%

5.3%

0 0 6 2

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 13 4

0.0% 0.0% 76.5% 23.5% 100.0%

4.0%

3.9%

15.0%

5.9%

5.6%

0 0 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 1

50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%

3 1 2 0

50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 9 1

38.9% 5.6% 50.0% 5.6% 100.0%

126

100.0%

103

100.0%

320

100.0%

58 1 63 4

46.0% 0.8% 50.0% 3.2% 100.0%

76 1 24 2

73.8% 1.0% 23.3% 1.9% 100.0%

18 2 19 1

45.0% 5.0% 47.5% 2.5% 100.0%

24 0 27 0

47.1% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

176 4 133 7

55.0% 1.3% 41.6% 2.2% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed at arraignment.

-30-

-31-

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 315 dockets reached disposition12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, much fewer than the 455 and 465 dockets disposed in 2011 and 2012. The citywide decrease from the previous reporting period is reflected in each borough, but to varying extents. The decrease was largest in the Bronx where the volume declined 36 percent from 132 dispositions to 84. The decrease in dispositions in Criminal Court in the Bronx reflects the return to the two-tier court system in that borough in October, 2012. Until then, cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx were transferred directly to Supreme Court for adjudication, so nearly every arraigned case was disposed at arraignment. Now nearly every case arraigned in the Bronx is adjourned for additional hearings in the lower court. If each of the 124 Bronx arraignments in 2012 was also disposed at arraignment, the decrease in Criminal Court dispositions in the Bronx would be only six percent, which would be the smallest decrease across the boroughs. Dispositions decreased by about a third in Manhattan (to 51 from 75) and Queens (to 59 from 88) and decreased by about a quarter in Brooklyn (to 121 from 160). 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, eight percent were attempted murder in the second degree, six percent were assault in the first degree, and the remaining eight percent were other JO charges. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 66 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; nearly as high as the 68 percent in 2011 and the 69 percent in 2010. 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 2011. In 2012, the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was lowest in Queens (53%, down from 64%), followed by Brooklyn (59%, up from 47%) and Manhattan (55%, down from 60%). In the Bronx, 92 percent were transferred to Supreme Court. The high rate of transfer to the upper court in the Bronx reflects the merging of the Bronx Criminal and Supreme Courts to create a single, integrated court of criminal jurisdiction which was in effect from November, 2004, to October, 2012. During that time, criminal cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx were transferred directly to Supreme Court for adjudication. In October, 2012, the two-tier court system was restored. Not only was the rate of transfer to Supreme Court affected by the consolidation of the Bronx 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 from the Criminal Court since the courts were merged. 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. In the final months of 2012 after the return to the twotiered system, five Bronx cases were sent to Family Court and two were dismissed by the lower court. 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-

Citywide, Criminal Court dispositions changed little. About one in ten cases were transferred to Family Court, 23 percent were dismissed, and two thirds were sent to Supreme Court. As in previous years, Manhattan had the highest rate of dismissal (45%, up from 40%, in 2011), followed by Brooklyn (30%, down from 37%) and Queens had the highest rate of transfer to Family Court (34%, up from 19%), also followed by Brooklyn (12%, down from 16%). Of course, dismissal of the docket in Criminal Court did not preclude the subsequent filing of nonJO charges in Family Court. However, the wide range of dispositions across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.13 Charge severity relates to the likelihood that the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. As presented in Exhibit 3B.2 and Table 3b, the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than disposition in Criminal Court through a dismissal or by transfer to Family Court, was higher when the charge was more severe. The rate of transfer to the Supreme Court in 2012 was higher for B-felony dockets (74%) than for Cfelony dockets (54%). The charge-severity difference in transfer rates is visible in each borough but is especially wide in Queens where nearly three quarters of B-felony dockets were transferred to Supreme Court compared to only a third of C-felony dockets. The difference was 19 percentage points in Brooklyn, thirteen in Manhattan and only three in the Bronx 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 2012 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 B-felony cases, but the median increased from two to three appearances for C-felony cases. The median number of appearances for cases in which the juvenile was released on recognizance at arraignment also increased from two to three. The median remained two appearances for the 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 again highest in Queens (5), compared to a median of three appearances in Manhattan (up from two) and two appearances in Brooklyn (down from 3). 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 during court consolidation. Although the median number of appearances in the Criminal Court was stable in 2012, the median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court citywide increased dramatically to 27 days, from only 12 days in 2011, to return to the median numbers of appearances in 2010 and 2009 (25 days and 27 days, respectively). The median number of days 13

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

-33-

increased for cases with B-felony disposition charges to 15 days from 12 days in 2011, but remained lower than in 2010 (22 days) and 2009 (33 days). The increase in length of case was also large for cases with C-felony disposition charges, up to 41 days in 2012 from 15 days in 2011 but about a month in 2010 and 2009. Cases where the juveniles were released on recognizance at arraignment took 48 days to reach disposition in the lower court in 2012 compared to 38, 36 and 40 days in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. However, there was no change for juveniles who were held on bail at arraignment. These juveniles spent a median of only five days in Criminal Court, the same as in 2011 and 2010. Although there are large borough differences in length of case, the medians differed little from the previous reporting period in most boroughs. The median number of days in Criminal Court ranged from a high of 86 days in Queens (83 in 2011 and 81 in 2010) and 35 in Brooklyn (40 in 2011and 2010) to zero days in the Bronx since nearly every case disposed in the Bronx Criminal Court was transferred to the Supreme Court at Criminal Court arraignment. The median number of days to disposition increased dramatically in Manhattan (up to 62 days in 2012 from 6 days in 2011 but 32 days in 2010). This change seems to reflect an increase in the length of case for Manhattan juveniles released on recognizance at arraignment. In 2011, these cases took a median of 88 days to reach disposition in Criminal Court, compared to 132 days in 2012, and these cases comprised more than half of the Manhattan cases in 2012 but little more than a third of those in 2011. 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).

-34-

-35-

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough: 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Attempted Murder 2 100%

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

3% 3%

11%

Other

20%

11%

80% 27% 48%

34%

26%

60% 49%

40%

51% 44%

46% 41%

20%

26%

11% 6%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=121)

(N=84)

(N=51)

(N=59)

(N=315)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

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

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03)

TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

71.1%

66.7%

37.3%

49.2%

190

60.3%

13 62 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

10.7% 51.2% 6.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

5 39 9 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

6.0% 46.4% 10.7% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 13 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

5.9% 25.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.1% 40.7% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

24 138 19 1 2 3 0 1 2 0

7.6% 43.8% 6.0% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0%

28.9%

33.3%

62.7%

50.8%

125

39.7%

33 0 2

27.3% 0.0% 1.7%

22 0 6

26.2% 0.0% 7.1%

25 2 5

49.0% 3.9% 9.8%

28 2 0

47.5% 3.4% 0.0%

108 4 13

34.3% 1.3% 4.1%

121

100.0%

315

100.0%

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Dismissals

Brooklyn (N=121)

Transfers to Supreme Court

12%

59%

30%

Bronx (N=84)

Manhattan (N=51)

92%

10%

55%

45%

Queens (N=59)

34%

Citywide (N=315) 100%

Transfers to Family Court

13%

11%

75%

50%

53%

66%

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: 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

74% 66%

54%

40 28% 23%

20%

18%

11%

7% 0

A or B Felonies (N=190)

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=122)

(N=312)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

0 0 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

CITYWIDE N %

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

B FELONIES:

71.1%

65.5%

37.3%

49.2%

189

60.0%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

24 7 55

27.9% 8.1% 64.0% 100.0%

3 1 51

5.5% 1.8% 92.7% 100.0%

7 0 12

36.8% 0.0% 63.2% 100.0%

3 5 21

10.3% 17.2% 72.4% 100.0%

37 13 139

19.6% 6.9% 73.5% 100.0%

C FELONIES:

28.9%

34.5%

62.7%

50.8%

126

40.0%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

12 7 16

34.3% 20.0% 45.7% 100.0%

2 1 26

6.9% 3.4% 89.7% 100.0%

16 0 16

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

5 15 10

16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 100.0%

35 23 68

27.8% 18.3% 54.0% 100.0%

121

100.0%

315

100.0%

36 14 71

29.8% 11.6% 58.7% 100.0%

5 2 77

6.0% 2.4% 91.7% 100.0%

23 0 28

45.1% 0.0% 54.9% 100.0%

8 20 31

13.6% 33.9% 52.5% 100.0%

72 36 207

22.9% 11.4% 65.7% 100.0%

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

-40-

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

6 5 4 3

3 2

2 1 1 0

A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=190)

(N=122)

(N=312)

-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 2012 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 FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

2.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

190

2.0

28 1 53 4

3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5

35 0 21 0

1.0 1.0 -

8 2 7 2

3.0 2.5 2.0 4.0

13 1 15 0

5.0 7.0 4.0 -

84 4 96 6

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

122

3.0

23 0 12 0

3.0 2.0 -

25 0 2 1

1.0 1.0 1.0

17 0 12 0

3.0 2.0 -

20 0 10 0

4.0 3.5 -

85 0 36 1

3.0 2.5 1.0

121

2.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

312

2.0

51 1 65 4

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

60 0 23 1

1.0 1.0 1.0

25 2 19 2

3.0 2.5 2.0 4.0

33 1 25 0

5.0 7.0 4.0 -

169 4 132 7

3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

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

-42-

Exhibit 3D Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

80 68

68 56

40 27 15

20 5

5 0

A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=190)

(N=122)

(N=312)

-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 2012 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 FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

24.5

0.0

55.0

81.0

190

15.0

28 1 53 4

114.0 27.0 5.0 2.0

35 0 21 0

0.0 0.0 -

8 2 7 2

76.5 68.5 5.0 67.5

13 1 15 0

111.0 180.0 65.0 -

84 4 96 6

46.5 68.5 5.0 4.5

50.0

0.0

85.0

87.5

122

41.0

23 0 12 0

57.0 5.0 -

25 0 2 1

0.0 0.0 0.0

17 0 12 0

172.0 5.0 -

20 0 10 0

88.0 59.0 -

85 0 36 1

56.0 6.0 0.0

121

35.0

0.0

62.5

86.0

312

27.0

51 1 65 4

80.0 27.0 5.0 2.0

60 0 23 1

0.0 0.0 0.0

25 2 19 2

132.0 68.5 5.0 67.5

33 1 25 0

89.0 180.0 59.0 -

169 4 132 7

48.0 68.5 5.0 4.0

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

-44-

-45-

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT The volume of JO cases at the first appearance in Supreme Court in 2012 (220) is lower than in 2011 (299), 2010 (301) and 2009 (335) and much lower than in 2008 (429). The volume of cases arriving in the upper court decreased in three boroughs but increased in Brooklyn. The large decrease in the Bronx (from 136 to 81) at least in part reflects the October, 2012, return to a two-tiered court system so that all cases continued in the lower court are no longer sent directly to the upper court at arraignment. After the Bronx, decrease was largest in Queens, to only 30 cases, down from 57 cases in 2011 and 44 cases in 2010 and smaller in Manhattan, to 30 cases from 47 in 2011 and 41 in 2010. In Brooklyn, the volume of first appearances in Supreme Court (79) was higher than in 2011 (59) and higher than in 2010 (73). It is important to remember that the number of cases with a first appearance in Supreme Court from 2007 through 2012 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 in 2004, nearly all of the JO cases in the Bronx were transferred to the Supreme Court and were routinely assigned an indictment number. 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 three-quarters (76%) of JO cases entering the upper court in 2012, about the same as in the previous reporting period. First-degree robbery charges made up eleven percent of all juvenile arrests during 2012, but comprised 46 percent of cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges accounted for barely a fifth of the JO arrests, but more than six of every ten cases that reached the Supreme Court (Table 4a). C-felony charges comprised eight of every ten JO arrests, but little more than a third 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 2012 pled guilty (7%) and 45 percent of juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. Few cases (12) were transferred to the Family Court, and even fewer cases (1) were dismissed. Most of the remaining cases (40%) 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 (33%), compared to just three cases in Manhattan, two in Brooklyn, and none in the Bronx. This finding reflects borough differences in plea policies and in the use of the Superior Court Information 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-

(SCI).15 The percentage of juvenile defendants who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 76 percent in Brooklyn to 63 percent in Manhattan, 53 percent in Queens, and five percent in the Bronx. On the other hand, most of the cases in the Bronx (76%) were continued at the first appearance compared to 27 percent of Manhattan JO cases, 19 percent of JO cases in Brooklyn and only ten percent of Queens JO cases. All of the JO cases transferred to the Family Court at the first appearance in Supreme Court were from the Bronx and these cases comprised fifteen percent of all Bronx JO cases at the first appearance in the upper 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 62 percent of cases. Nearly one third 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 55 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 74 percent of cases with C-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 (43%) than were their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (62%). Borough differences in the release rates at the first appearance in the upper court were substantial. In 2012, the highest rate of ROR was in the Bronx (70%), followed by Queens (45%), Brooklyn (42%), and Manhattan (33%). However, juveniles in the Bronx were far less likely to secure release on bail (just 1 juvenile) than those in any other borough (24% in Queens, 17% in Brooklyn, and 10% 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 Bronx (71%) and Queens (69%) but juveniles were released on ROR or on bail in 58 percent of cases at the first upper court appearance in Brooklyn and only 43 percent of those 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 2012, citywide, it took a median of 21 days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court, a week longer than in 2011 and three days longer than in 2010. The citywide median number of days did not vary by charge severity (21 days for B-felony cases and 20 days for C-felony cases). Cases in which defendants were released, on recognizance (20 days) or bail (23 days), or remanded with no bail set (37 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 (14 days). The borough differences in Table 4d were wide. The longest median time from lower to upper court was in Brooklyn (38 days, up from 35.5 days in 2011 and from 25 days in 2010), followed by Queens (14 days, up from only 1.5 days in 2011 and 2.5 days in 2010). There was 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-

little change in Manhattan (12 days, compared to 11 and 10 in 2011 and 2010) and no change in the Bronx (5 days in both 2012 and 2011 but 11 days in 2010). 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: 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 8%

Robbery 2 30%

Robbery 1 46%

Assault 1 7%

Other 9%

(N=220)

Murder 2 1%

-50Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Murder 2 Robbery 2

Attempted Murder 2 Assault 1

Robbery 1 Other

100%

6% 11%

17% 7%

12%

80%

25%

37%

30% 26%

60% 50%

40%

56% 50% 46% 43%

20% 20%

10%

6% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=79)

(N=81)

(N=30)

(N=220)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2012 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 FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Other Non-JO Offenses

TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

1.2%

1 0 0 1

1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

1 0 0 1

0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

72.2%

65.4%

36.7%

63.3%

140

63.6%

8 44 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

10.1% 55.7% 2.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

5 35 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

6.2% 43.2% 12.3% 0.0% 1.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

6.7% 20.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0%

3 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.0% 50.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

18 100 15 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

8.2% 45.5% 6.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0%

27.8%

33.3%

63.3%

36.7%

35.9%

20 0 2 0

25.3% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

21 0 6 0

25.9% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0%

15 0 4 0

50.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0%

11 0 0 0

36.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

67 0 12 0

30.5% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0%

100.0%

220

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Pled Guilty Dismissed 100%

Pled Not Guilty Continued 2%

Transfer to Family Court Bench Warrant

3% 10%

19%

27%

80%

40%

53%

60%

76%

76% 63%

40%

45%

20%

33%

15% 10% 2%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=79)

(N=81)

(N=30)

(N=220)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

DISPOSITION

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

1.2%

0 0 1 0 0 0

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

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

0 0 1 0 0 0

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

B FELONIES:

72.2%

65.4%

36.7%

63.3%

140

63.6%

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

0 0 10 45 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 17.5% 78.9% 1.8% 1.8% 100.0%

0 5 43 3 0 2

0.0% 9.4% 81.1% 5.7% 0.0% 3.8% 100.0%

0 0 4 6 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 54.5% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 10 7 0

0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 52.6% 36.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 5 59 64 9 3

0.0% 3.6% 42.1% 45.7% 6.4% 2.1% 100.0%

C FELONIES:

27.8%

33.3%

63.3%

36.7%

35.9%

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

0 0 5 15 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 22.7% 68.2% 4.5% 4.5% 100.0%

1 7 18 1 0 0

3.7% 25.9% 66.7% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 4 13 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 68.4% 10.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 6 3 1

0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 54.5% 27.3% 9.1% 100.0%

1 7 28 35 6 2

1.3% 8.9% 35.4% 44.3% 7.6% 2.5% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

220

100.0%

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

0 0 15 60 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 75.9% 2.5% 2.5% 100.0%

1 12 62 4 0 2

1.2% 14.8% 76.5% 4.9% 0.0% 2.5% 100.0%

0 0 8 19 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 63.3% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 16 10 1

0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 53.3% 33.3% 3.3% 100.0%

1 12 88 99 15 5

0.5% 5.5% 40.0% 45.0% 6.8% 2.3% 100.0%

-54-

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100% 7%

12% 29%

24%

80%

32% 30% 2%

50%

60% 24%

12%

17%

40%

10% 70%

50% 45%

42%

20%

33%

0% Brooklyn (N=77)

Bronx (N=66)

Manhattan (N=30)

Queens (N=29)

Citywide (N=202)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2012 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 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 % 1

1.5%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.5%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

72.7%

69.7%

36.7%

65.5%

132

65.3%

18 11 19 8

32.1% 19.6% 33.9% 14.3% 100.0%

29 1 16 0

63.0% 2.2% 34.8% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 7 2

18.2% 0.0% 63.6% 18.2% 100.0%

8 4 5 2

42.1% 21.1% 26.3% 10.5% 100.0%

57 16 47 12

43.2% 12.1% 35.6% 9.1% 100.0%

27.3%

28.8%

63.3%

34.5%

34.2%

14 2 4 1

66.7% 9.5% 19.0% 4.8% 100.0%

16 0 3 0

84.2% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0% 100.0%

8 3 8 0

42.1% 15.8% 42.1% 0.0% 100.0%

5 3 2 0

50.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

43 8 17 1

62.3% 11.6% 24.6% 1.4% 100.0%

100.0%

202

100.0%

32 13 23 9

41.6% 16.9% 29.9% 11.7% 100.0%

46 1 19 0

69.7% 1.5% 28.8% 0.0% 100.0%

10 3 15 2

33.3% 10.0% 50.0% 6.7% 100.0%

13 7 7 2

44.8% 24.1% 24.1% 6.9% 100.0%

101 24 64 13

50.0% 11.9% 31.7% 6.4% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status 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: 2012 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

70 63 60 50 40 28

30 20

23 14

10 0

A or B Felonies (N=133)

C Felonies (N=69)

All Charges (N=202)

-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 2012 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 FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ALL CHARGES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

3.0 -

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

3.0 -

38.0

5.0

8.0

14.0

132

21.0

18 11 19 8

24.5 35.0 49.0 43.5

29 1 16 0

9.0 5.0 4.0 -

2 0 7 2

23.0 8.0 6.0

8 4 5 2

8.0 17.0 14.0 0.0

57 16 47 12

18.0 27.5 14.0 36.0

32.0

11.0

14.0

15.0

20.0

14 2 4 1

29.0 75.5 45.5 63.0

16 0 3 0

15.0 4.0 -

8 3 8 0

20.0 21.0 7.0 -

5 3 2

15.0 14.0 20.5 -

43 8 17 1

21.0 18.0 7.0 63.0

38.0

5.0

12.0

14.0

202

21.0

32 13 23 9

27.0 35.0 49.0 46.0

46 1 19 0

11.5 5.0 4.0 -

10 3 15 2

20.5 21.0 7.0 6.0

13 7 7 2

15.0 14.0 14.0 0.0

101 24 64 13

20.0 23.0 14.0 37.0

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

-58-

-59-

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION In 2012, 247 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court citywide, fewer than in 2011 (320), 2011 (307), or 2010 (380). The volume of JO dispositions decreased in each borough, but the size of the decrease was largest in Queens where only 31 cases reached disposition in 2012 compared to 64 during the previous reporting period. JO dispositions in the Bronx (114, down from 137) and Brooklyn (64, down from 77) decreased by 17 percent while those in Manhattan also decreased but by a smaller percent (10%, 38, down from 42). 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 charges at disposition in the upper court were first- and second-degree robbery (44% and 30%, respectively). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for nearly threequarters of Supreme Court dispositions. After robbery charges, assault was the most frequent charge, accounting for ten percent of upper court dispositions. Only two disposed cases had an A-felony disposition charge: both were disposed with a second-degree murder charges in Queens (1% citywide). B-felony charges accounted for 61 percent of disposed cases and C-felony charges accounted for the remaining cases (39%). 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 26 percent in Manhattan and 42 percent in the Bronx to 52 percent in Brooklyn and 55 percent in Queens. The boroughs also differ in the proportion of cases disposed at the seconddegree robbery level: barely a fifth (19%) of cases in Queens were disposed with second-degree robbery charges, compared to 29 percent in Manhattan and the Bronx and 38 percent in Brooklyn. The combined proportion of cases disposed with first- or second-degree robbery charges ranges from 55 percent in Manhattan, to 71 and 74 percent in the Bronx and Queens, respectively, to 89 percent in Brooklyn. After the robbery charges, the most common disposition charge was first-degree assault, which accounted for thirteen percent of disposition charges in Manhattan, eleven percent in the Bronx, ten percent in Queens and only six percent in Brooklyn. 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, nearly eight of every ten JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rate was over 90 percent in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens but only six of every ten Bronx JO dispositions in the Supreme Court were convictions. The relatively low rate of conviction in the Bronx reflects the consequences of merging the criminal courts in that borough. In 2012, 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 consolidation of the Bronx courts in 2004, 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 2012 at the B-felony level were less likely to yield convictions (77%) than cases disposed at the C-felony level (82%), and the differences in conviction rates by charge severity are small in all of the boroughs. In 2012, 192 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing citywide, fewer than in 2011 (226) or any previous reporting year. (There were 221 in 2010, 277 in 2009, 235 in 2008 and 232 in 2007.) As Exhibit 5C and Table 5c indicate, defendants were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance in 61 percent of JO cases that were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period (comparable to the 60% to 66% across previous years). Fortyseven percent of juveniles were released on recognizance pending sentencing and fourteen percent were released on bail. As in previous reporting periods, it was rare for defendants in JO cases to be held on bail at conviction pending sentencing in Supreme Court; in less than four percent of disposed JO cases was the convicted juvenile in detention because the bail could not be met. The convicted juveniles were more likely to be remanded with no bail set in 2012 (35%) than in 2011 (29%). 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 2012, as 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 (76%) of disposed cases. Juveniles were released in about six of every ten disposed cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx but fewer than half of the convicted juveniles were released in Manhattan (44%). Juveniles convicted in Queens were more likely to be released on recognizance (52%) and more likely to be released on bail (24%) than were juveniles in any other borough. Juveniles in Manhattan were most likely to be remanded with no bail set at disposition (53%) compared to those in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens (37%, 31% and 21%, 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, three quarters 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 varies substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (97%), followed by Brooklyn (92%), and then the Bronx and Queens (65% and 58%, 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 is attributable to case processing in accordance with the merger of the Bronx criminal courts. Since almost every Bronx JO case was transferred to the Supreme Court, virtually all dispositions took place in the upper court, including dispositions for cases that were not ultimately retained in adult court. However, only indicted cases (and SCIs) are assigned to the JO Part for processing. Citywide, the proportion of JO cases disposed in JO Parts rose dramatically from 2011 (53%) to 2012 (76%). The use of the JO Parts, which changed little in Manhattan and Brooklyn, increased in both the Bronx (65%, up from 37%) and Queens (58%, up from 17%). The increase in the proportion of JO dispositions that take place in the JO Part in the Bronx reflects the separation of the lower and upper court in the last quarter of 2012 so that only the indicted and SCI cases can reach disposition in the Supreme Court. The increase in the proportion of JO

-61-

dispositions that take place in the JO Parts in Queens reflects the decrease in the use of SCIs in JO cases in that borough. 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, as in 2011, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts: nearly nine of every ten cases disposed in a JO Part resulted in conviction, compared to just over half of the cases disposed in other parts. The low conviction rate for non-JO Parts primarily reflects the low conviction rate in non-JO Parts in the Bronx, since Bronx cases comprise the bulk 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. 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 (dismissals and transfers to Family Court) tend to occur in non-JO Parts. In other words, since Bronx JO cases continued at arraignment in Criminal Court were adjourned directly to the upper court, dispositions that might take place in the lower court in other borough instead occurred in the Supreme Court in the Bronx. More than three quarters of the dispositions in Bronx JO Parts were convictions, compared to only 30 percent of those in non-JO Parts. It seems likely that the convictions in non-JO Parts in Queens reflect the SCI cases, which imply that the plea was already entered but all but one disposition in Queens in non-JO Parts and all but one disposition in the Queens JO Parts were not convictions. In Brooklyn and Manhattan, the volume of dispositions separated by JO versus non-JO Part was too low to permit even speculations 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 2012, it took a median of eight appearances and 245 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court, up from six appearances and 164 days in 2011. JO cases with B-felony charges took nine appearances and 266 days to reach disposition, and JO cases with C-felony charges took seven appearances and 202 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 2012, it took a median of only five appearances to reach disposition in Queens, compared to six in Brooklyn, ten in the Bronx, and twelve appearances in Manhattan. Since 2011, the number of appearances to disposition remained the same Manhattan, but increased in the other boroughs. The increase in Queens reflects the decline in the use of SCIs 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. The median number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from 70 days in Queens (up from 48)

-62-

to 220 days in Brooklyn (up from 178), 309 days in Manhattan (up from 298) and 440 days in the Bronx (up dramatically from 169). 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 2012, length of case varied little by release status. JO cases with juveniles released on recognizance at the first upper court appearance took a median of nine appearances and more than nine months to reach disposition. The number of appearances was also nine for the cases with juveniles released on bail and or held on bail, though bail-release cases took about eight months to reach disposition and the bail-held cases took about six and a half months. When the juvenile was remanded with no bail set at the first appearance in the upper court, the case took a median of one additional appearances (10) and about eleven months to reach disposition. 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 284 days), compared to non-JO Parts (2 appearances and 45 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 Queens (5), followed by Brooklyn (6), then the Bronx (12.5) and Manhattan (13). Cases took a median of 108 days to reach disposition in the JO Part in Queens and 213 days in Brooklyn, compared to ten and a half months in Manhattan, and just over sixteen months in the Bronx. Citywide, the number of appearances to disposition within the JO Parts was nine in both 2011 and 2012 and the number of days to disposition showed a comparatively small increase of 25 days (from 255 to 284). The relative stability in the length of case within the JO Parts and the JO-Part versus non-JO Part comparisons, above, suggest that the citywide increase in length of case discussed above reflects the increase in the proportion of cases processed in the JO Parts, in addition to the effects of the decline in the use of SCIs in JO cases, and the change in the structure of the Bronx courts.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Offenses 2%

Assault 1 10%

Murder 2 1%

Other JO Offenses 10% Robbery 1 44%

Robbery 2 30% Att. Murder 2 4%

(N=247)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other JO Offenses

Non-JO Offenses

100%

3% 6%

10% 9% 10% 30%

80%

10% 19%

11% 38%

60%

30%

14%

29%

27% 55%

40%

52%

44%

42%

20% 26% 6% 4%

4% 1%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=64)

(N=114)

(N=38)

(N=31)

(N=247)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

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

TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

6.5%

0.8%

2 0 0

6.5% 0.0% 0.0%

2 0 0

0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

59.4%

63.2%

47.4%

71.0%

150

60.7%

1 33 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6% 51.6% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 48 13 0 2 3 0 0 1 0

4.4% 42.1% 11.4% 0.0% 1.8% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

1 10 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

2.6% 26.3% 13.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.5% 54.8% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

9 108 25 1 2 3 0 1 1 0

3.6% 43.7% 10.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%

40.6%

36.8%

52.6%

22.6%

38.5%

24 0 2 0 0

37.5% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0%

33 1 4 0 4

28.9% 0.9% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

11 0 9 0 0

28.9% 0.0% 23.7% 0.0% 0.0%

6 0 0 0 1

19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

74 1 15 0 5

30.0% 0.4% 6.1% 0.0% 2.0%

100.0%

114

100.0%

247

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

100%

No Conviction

22% 40%

80%

60%

95%

92%

94%

40%

78% 60%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=64)

(N=114)

(N=38)

(N=31)

(N=247)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES: Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

Brooklyn % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx % 0

0.0%

0 0

Manhattan N % 0

0.0%

0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

6.5%

0.8%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

59.4%

63.2%

47.4%

71.0%

150

60.7%

36 2

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

41 31

56.9% 43.1% 100.0%

17 1

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

21 1

95.5% 4.5% 100.0%

115 35

76.7% 23.3% 100.0%

40.6%

36.8%

52.6%

22.6%

38.5%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

25 1

96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

28 14

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

18 2

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

7 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

78 17

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

114

100.0%

247

100.0%

Conviction No Conviction TOTAL

61 3

95.3% 4.7% 100.0%

69 45

60.5% 39.5% 100.0%

35 3

92.1% 7.9% 100.0%

29 2

93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

194 53

78.5% 21.5% 100.0%

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

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

21% 31%

35%

37%

80%

3% 53% 7%

24%

60% 15%

14%

15%

3% 3%

40%

52% 48%

47%

47% 41%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=61)

(N=68)

(N=34)

(N=29)

(N=192)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

3.4%

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

59.0%

58.8%

50.0%

72.4%

114

59.4%

12 6 3 15

33.3% 16.7% 8.3% 41.7% 100.0%

17 3 1 19

42.5% 7.5% 2.5% 47.5% 100.0%

4 0 1 12

23.5% 0.0% 5.9% 70.6% 100.0%

11 5 0 5

52.4% 23.8% 0.0% 23.8% 100.0%

44 14 5 51

38.6% 12.3% 4.4% 44.7% 100.0%

41.0%

41.2%

50.0%

24.1%

40.1%

17 3 1 4

68.0% 12.0% 4.0% 16.0% 100.0%

15 7 0 6

53.6% 25.0% 0.0% 21.4% 100.0%

10 1 0 6

58.8% 5.9% 0.0% 35.3% 100.0%

4 2 1 0

57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

46 13 2 16

59.7% 16.9% 2.6% 20.8% 100.0%

100.0%

192

100.0%

29 9 4 19

47.5% 14.8% 6.6% 31.1% 100.0%

32 10 1 25

47.1% 14.7% 1.5% 36.8% 100.0%

14 1 1 18

41.2% 2.9% 2.9% 52.9% 100.0%

15 7 1 6

51.7% 24.1% 3.4% 20.7% 100.0%

90 27 7 68

46.9% 14.1% 3.6% 35.4% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status at Supreme Court disposition was not available because the case was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death. Also excludes cases in which the juvenile pled guilty and was sentenced at the same court appearance without adjournment.

-70-

Exhibit 5D.1 Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

100%

Non-JO Part

24% 35%

80%

42%

60% 97%

92%

40%

76% 65%

58%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

(N=64)

(N=114)

(N=38)

(N=31)

Citywide (N=247)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Dismissed

Transferred to Family Court

Convicted

100% 90%

87%

85%

80%

60%

56% 51%

40% 28%

30%

27%

25%

20%

22%

14%

13% 7% 3%

11% 2%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=150)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=78)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Charges (N=228)

-72Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 2

6.5%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.8%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

1 1 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

59.4%

63.2%

47.4%

71.0%

150

60.7%

32 0 2 34

94.1% 0.0% 5.9% 100.0%

36 0 13 49

73.5% 0.0% 26.5% 100.0%

17 0 1 18

94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 100.0%

14 1 0 15

93.3% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%

99 1 16 116

85.3% 0.9% 13.8% 100.0%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 8 10 23

21.7% 34.8% 43.5% 100.0%

0 0 0

7 0 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16 8 10 34

47.1% 23.5% 29.4% 100.0%

40.6%

36.8%

52.6%

22.6%

38.5%

24 1 0 25

96.0% 4.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 0 4 25

84.0% 0.0% 16.0% 100.0%

17 1 1 19

89.5% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

65 2 5 72

90.3% 2.8% 6.9% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 7 3 17

41.2% 41.2% 17.6% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 7 3 23

56.5% 30.4% 13.0% 100.0%

100.0%

114

100.0%

247

100.0%

56 1 2 59

94.9% 1.7% 3.4% 100.0%

57 0 17 74

77.0% 0.0% 23.0% 100.0%

34 1 2 37

91.9% 2.7% 5.4% 100.0%

17 1 0 18

94.4% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

164 3 21 188

87.2% 1.6% 11.2% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 15 13 40

30.0% 37.5% 32.5% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 1 0 13

92.3% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%

30 16 13 59

50.8% 27.1% 22.0% 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

-73Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

20 16 12

11 9

9 7

4 0 A or B Felonies

C Felonies

(N=150)

(N=78)

All Charges (N=228)

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: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

600 500

456

400 300

333

341 243 236

284

245 245

234

244

202

200 108 100 0 A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=150)

(N=78)

(N=228)

-74-

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

15.0

34.5

15.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

15.0

0 0 1 1

59.0 10.0

0 0 1 2

59.0 12.5

7.5

13.0

5.0

147

10.0

8 11 8 5

9.0 8.0 4.5 8.0

42 7 22 2

12.5 13.0 12.0 14.5

4 1 11 3

15.0 12.0 13.0 10.0

7 6 8 2

1.0 6.0 6.0 1.0

61 25 49 12

11.0 9.0 10.0 9.0

5.5

8.0

10.0

1.5

7.0

17 5 4 2

5.0 6.0 3.0 5.5

18 3 4 1

8.0 14.0 7.5 15.0

7 4 7 0

10.0 11.5 7.0 -

3 3 0 0

1.0 2.0 -

45 15 15 3

7.0 7.0 6.0 9.0

6.0

11.0

12.5

5.0

228

9.0

25 16 12 7

7.0 7.0 3.5 8.0

60 10 26 3

10.5 13.5 12.0 15.0

11 5 18 4

14.0 12.0 12.5 12.5

10 9 9 3

1.0 5.0 7.0 1.0

106 40 65 17

9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0

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

-75-

Table 5f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2011 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

762.0

933.0

762.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

762.0

0 0 1 1

1517.0 349.0

0 0 1 2

1517.0 555.0

223.0

487.0

354.0

70.0

147

276.0

8 11 8 5

241.0 273.0 119.0 255.0

42 7 22 2

521.0 632.0 440.0 520.5

4 1 11 3

366.0 357.0 354.0 333.0

7 6 8 2

0.0 112.5 84.5 0.0

61 25 49 12

458.0 243.0 222.0 294.0

180.0

306.5

294.0

22.0

222.0

17 5 4 2

213.0 238.0 42.5 119.0

18 3 4 1

325.0 689.0 128.5 568.0

7 4 7 0

287.0 297.5 202.0 -

3 3 0 0

0.0 44.0 -

45 15 15 3

245.0 245.0 108.0 234.0

217.0

467.0

309.0

70.0

228

251.5

25 16 12 7

231.0 241.5 62.5 234.0

60 10 26 3

472.0 659.5 374.5 544.0

11 5 18 4

287.0 300.0 333.5 424.5

10 9 9 3

0.0 84.0 98.0 0.0

106 40 65 17

283.5 244.0 202.0 333.0

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: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

15 10 10

1 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=151)

(N=96)

(N=247)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

350

Non-JO Part

312 284

300 242

250 200 150 100

74 45

0 A or B Felonies (N=151)

C or D Felonies (N=96)

All Charges (N=247)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

34.5

0 0

0 2

34.5

0 2

34.5

7.0

12.0

13.5

4.5

149

9.0

34 3

6.5 16.0

49 23

13.0 3.0

18 0

13.5 -

15 7

5.0 1.0

116 33

10.0 3.0

5.0

8.0

11.5

2.0

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

25 2

5.0 14.5

25 17

10.0 1.0

19 1

13.0 1.0

3 4

7.0 1.0

72 24

8.0 1.0

ALL CHARGES:

6.0

114

10.0

12.5

5.0

247

8.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

59 5

6.0 16.0

74 40

12.5 3.0

37 1

13.0 1.0

18 13

5.0 1.0

188 59

9.0 2.0

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

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

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

933.0

0 0

0 2

933.0

0 2

933.0

245.0

485.5

362.5

69.5

149

266.0

34 3

223.0 492.0

49 23

521.0 80.0

18 0

362.5 -

15 7

98.0 0.0

116 33

312.5 45.0

185.0

269.5

294.5

44.0

202.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

25 2

173.0 409.0

25 17

337.0 0.0

19 1

295.0 0.0

3 4

149.0 0.0

72 24

242.5 0.0

ALL CHARGES:

219.5

114

440.0

309.0

70.0

247

245.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

59 5

213.0 492.0

74 40

485.5 73.5

37 1

318.0 0.0

18 13

108.5 0.0

188 59

283.5 45.0

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 197 JO cases reached sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period, more than ten percent fewer than in 2011 (221), and also fewer than in recent years: 230 in 2010, 266 in 2009, and 225 in 2008. However, the number of sentences in JO cases increased in two boroughs and decreased in two boroughs. More JO cases reached sentencing in 2012 in the Bronx (76, up from 70) and Manhattan (42, up from 39) than in 2011, but many fewer cases reached sentencing in Queens (32, down from 50) and Brooklyn (47, down from 62). Citywide, more than half (54%) of sentences for juvenile offenders in 2012 were custodial, higher than in 2011 (42%) or 2010 and 2009 (both 47%), but lower than in 2008 (59%). Custodial sentences include an imprisonment sentence (53%, up from 37% in 2011, 45% in 2010 and 41% in 2009) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (less than 2%, down from 5% in 2011 but 2% in 2010 and 6% in 2009). In 2012, as shown in Table 6a, sentences in JO cases in Manhattan (71%) were far more likely to be incarcerative than those in other borough, and the sentences were much more likely to be incarcerative than in previous years (38% in 2011 and 36% in 2010). More than half of Brooklyn JO sentences were incarcerative in 2012 (55%, compared to 52% in 2010). The use of incarcerative sentences increased to 50 percent in the Bronx (up from 39%) and increased slightly to 41 percent in Queens (from 38%), though the proportion sentence to either prison or to prison and probation had declined in that borough since 2010 (50%). As Table 6a indicates, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence in 2012 was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (64%, up from 52% in 2011) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (42% up from 30% in 2011). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences in the JO Parts to those given in non-JO Parts, for different conviction-charge severities, citywide in 2012. Sentences in JO Parts were far more likely to require imprisonment (58%, up from 40%) than were sentences in non-JO Parts (34% up from 27%). In previous years, “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%, in 2011), but in 2012 only three sentences in JO cases were “split” sentences, one in a JO Part and two in a non-JO Part. Exhibit 6B.2 presents the sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts for each borough in 2012. However, the low volume of cases in certain borough-court part categories precludes meaningful comparisons in those boroughs. In Manhattan (2) and Brooklyn (5), 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 (54%) of all of the sentences in non-JO Parts in 2012 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

-80-

comparisons are affected by the distribution of cases between JO and non-JO Parts across boroughs, as well as changes in these distributions from year to year. Exhibits 6C.1 and 6C.2, and Table 6c, display the conditions of sentence granted in JO versus non-JO Parts, for different conviction-charge classes, citywide. Overall, juvenile defendants were granted YO16 status in 85 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 (93%) than were their counterparts who were sentenced in JO Parts (83%). Juveniles sentenced in cases in Manhattan (64%) were less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts in the Bronx or Queens (both 88%) and especially Brooklyn (98%) where only one juvenile was not granted YO status. 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. More juveniles were sentenced to imprisonment in JO cases in 2012 (107) than in 2011 (93), but the volume was about the same as in 2010 (108), and fewer than in previous reporting periods (125 in 2009, 133 in 2008, and 132 in 2007). The volume of incarcerative sentences increased in Manhattan (from 15 to 30) and in the Bronx (from 27 to 38), but decreased in Brooklyn (from 32 to 26) and Queens (from 19 to 13). Citywide, 35 percent of incarcerative sentences were for a year or less, a smaller proportion that in 2011 (41%), but higher in 2010 (27%). Nearly a quarter (23%) of the incarcerative sentences in 2012 was for one to three years, comparable to the 22 percent in 2011. Additionally, the percent of incarcerative sentences for two to six years has declined slightly to sixteen percent from 19 percent in 2011. Incarcerative sentences for juveniles in cases with B-felony conviction charges were longer than those in cases with less severe charges at conviction: one in three incarcerative sentences at the B-felony level were for a year or less compared to 44 percent of those at the C-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 thirteen times in Supreme Court, one more than the median in 2011, 2010 and 2009. A median of fourteen months (420 days) elapsed between the first appearance in Supreme Court and sentencing for juveniles sentenced in 2012, which is also longer than the median number of days in 2011 (386), 2010 (402) and 2009 (370). Borough differences in length of case are striking, as are the changes in length of case. In previous reporting periods, JO cases reached sentencing much more swiftly in Queens than in other boroughs, but this is not true in 2012. In 2011, it took a median of only 5.5 appearances and 142 days to reach sentencing in Queens but in 2012 it took roughly twice as long: more than 10 appearances and 292 days. The median length of case was shortest in Brooklyn, which showed little change. In 2011, cases in Brooklyn took a median of nine appearances (292 days), 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-

compared to a median of nine and half appearances (276 days) in 2012. Bronx cases required one fewer appearances (14, down from 15) but more days (568, up from 526). Length of case decreased in Manhattan to a median of 20 appearances (down from 21) and 490 days (down from 651). 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 fourteen appearances and 480 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, while JO cases with C-felony charges at conviction took twelve appearances and 388 days to reach sentencing (Exhibits 6E and 6F). In 2011, it was the C-felony cases that took longer (13 appearances, 448 days) compared to the B-felony cases (11 appearances, 335 days). It is difficult to summarize patterns in length of case (in terms of median number of appearances or days) by release status at conviction or by release status and conviction-charge severity, either across or within boroughs. Although borough differences exist, the small volume of cases in many categories limits meaningful comparisons. It is important to note that the release status set at conviction may not be the release status set for the juvenile for all of the appearances prior to sentencing. Many juveniles are released to the supervision of community programs at an appearance subsequent to conviction but before imposition of sentence, and these releases are not reflected in this report.

-82-

-83-

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imp. and Probation

100%

Probation

Other

2% 10%

11%

22% 26%

80% 34%

36%

41%

38%

60%

2% 4%

40% 71% 55%

53% 46% 41%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

(N=47)

(N=76)

(N=42)

Queens (N=32)

Citywide (N=197)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

57.4%

63.2%

45.2%

53.1%

111

56.3%

16 0 7 4

59.3% 0.0% 25.9% 14.8% 100.0%

27 3 14 4

56.3% 6.3% 29.2% 8.3% 100.0%

15 0 3 1

78.9% 0.0% 15.8% 5.3% 100.0%

10 0 4 3

58.8% 0.0% 23.5% 17.6% 100.0%

68 3 28 12

61.3% 2.7% 25.2% 10.8% 100.0%

42.6%

36.8%

54.8%

46.9%

43.7%

10 0 9 1

50.0% 0.0% 45.0% 5.0% 100.0%

8 0 17 3

28.6% 0.0% 60.7% 10.7% 100.0%

15 0 8 0

65.2% 0.0% 34.8% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 8 4

20.0% 0.0% 53.3% 26.7% 100.0%

36 0 42 8

41.9% 0.0% 48.8% 9.3% 100.0%

100.0%

197

100.0%

26 0 16 5

55.3% 0.0% 34.0% 10.6% 100.0%

35 3 31 7

46.1% 3.9% 40.8% 9.2% 100.0%

30 0 11 1

71.4% 0.0% 26.2% 2.4% 100.0%

13 0 12 7

40.6% 0.0% 37.5% 21.9% 100.0%

104 3 70 20

52.8% 1.5% 35.5% 10.2% 100.0%

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

Probation

Other

80% 71

70%

67 58

60% 50%

40%

30%

20%

14 7

10%

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=111)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=86)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=197)

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

100%

Imp. and Probation

Probation

20 25

80%

50 60

Other

36 67

60%

40%

72 57

20%

41 34

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=42) (N=5)

(N=64) (N=12)

(N=40)

(N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=10) (N=22)

(N=156) (N=41)

-87-

Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

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

57.4%

63.2%

45.2%

53.1%

111

56.3%

14 0 7 1 22

63.6% 0.0% 31.8% 4.5% 100.0%

25 1 9 4 39

64.1% 2.6% 23.1% 10.3% 100.0%

14 0 3 1 18

77.8% 0.0% 16.7% 5.6% 100.0%

3 0 2 0 5

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

56 1 21 6 84

66.7% 1.2% 25.0% 7.1% 100.0%

2 0 0 3 5

40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 100.0%

2 2 5 0 9

22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 2 3 12

58.3% 0.0% 16.7% 25.0% 100.0%

12 2 7 6 27

44.4% 7.4% 25.9% 22.2% 100.0%

42.6%

36.8%

54.8%

46.9%

43.7%

10 0 9 1 20

50.0% 0.0% 45.0% 5.0% 100.0%

8 0 14 3 25

32.0% 0.0% 56.0% 12.0% 100.0%

15 0 7 0 22

68.2% 0.0% 31.8% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 2 5

20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

34 0 32 6 72

47.2% 0.0% 44.4% 8.3% 100.0%

0 0 3 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 6 2 10

20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0%

2 0 10 2 14

14.3% 0.0% 71.4% 14.3% 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:

0 0 0 0 47

100.0%

197

100.0%

24 0 16 2 42

57.1% 0.0% 38.1% 4.8% 100.0%

33 1 23 7 64

51.6% 1.6% 35.9% 10.9% 100.0%

29 0 10 1 40

72.5% 0.0% 25.0% 2.5% 100.0%

4 0 4 2 10

40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0%

90 1 53 12 156

57.7% 0.6% 34.0% 7.7% 100.0%

2 0 0 3 5

40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 100.0%

2 2 8 0 12

16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 8 5 22

40.9% 0.0% 36.4% 22.7% 100.0%

14 2 17 8 41

34.1% 4.9% 41.5% 19.5% 100.0%

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: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

Not Youthful Offender

100 89%

89%

100%

93% 83%

79%

60 40 21%

11%

17% 7%

0 JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=111)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=86)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=197)

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

100%

Not Youthful Offender

20 35

80%

60% 98

100

40%

65 50

20%

Brooklyn JO Part (N=42)

NonJO Part (N=5)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=64) (N=12)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=40) (N=2)

Queens

Citywide

JO Part NonJO Part (N=10) (N=22)

JO Part NonJO Part (N=156) (N=41)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

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

57.4%

63.2%

45.2%

53.1%

111

56.3%

22 0 22

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32 7 39

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

9 9 18

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3 2 5

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

66 18 84

78.6% 21.4% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 9

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10 2 12

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

24 3 27

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

42.6%

36.8%

54.8%

46.9%

43.7%

19 1 20

95.0% 5.0% 100.0%

23 2 25

92.0% 8.0% 100.0%

17 5 22

77.3% 22.7% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

64 8 72

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 10

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 14

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

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

0 0 47

100.0%

197

100.0%

41 1 42

97.6% 2.4% 100.0%

55 9 64

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

26 14 40

65.0% 35.0% 100.0%

8 2 10

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

130 26 156

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

20 2 22

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

38 3 41

92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

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: 2012 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%

3% 10%

10% 15%

80%

29%

46% 27%

37%

23%

60% 23% 19%

30%

40%

24%

31% 26%

20%

31%

18% 30%

Brooklyn (N=26)

16%

10%

23%

Bronx (N=38

Manhattan (N=30)

Queens

Citywide

(N=13)

(N=107)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT INCARCERATIVE SENTENCES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

B FELONIES:

61.5%

78.9%

50.0%

76.9%

66.4%

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

0 6 3 7 0 16

0.0% 37.5% 18.8% 43.8% 0.0% 100.0%

4 9 8 6 3 30

13.3% 30.0% 26.7% 20.0% 10.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 5 6 15

0.0% 6.7% 20.0% 33.3% 40.0% 100.0%

0 1 3 3 3 10

0.0% 10.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 100.0%

4 17 17 21 12 71

5.6% 23.9% 23.9% 29.6% 16.9% 100.0%

C FELONIES:

38.5%

21.1%

50.0%

23.1%

33.6%

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

0 6 2 1 1 10

0.0% 60.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0%

0 5 1 1 1 8

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

1 2 5 4 3 15

6.7% 13.3% 33.3% 26.7% 20.0% 100.0%

1 1 0 1 0 3

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

2 14 8 7 5 36

5.6% 38.9% 22.2% 19.4% 13.9% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

107

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

0 12 5 8 1 26

0.0% 46.2% 19.2% 30.8% 3.8% 100.0%

4 14 9 7 4 38

10.5% 36.8% 23.7% 18.4% 10.5% 100.0%

1 3 8 9 9 30

3.3% 10.0% 26.7% 30.0% 30.0% 100.0%

1 2 3 4 3 13

7.7% 15.4% 23.1% 30.8% 23.1% 100.0%

6 31 25 28 17 107

5.6% 29.0% 23.4% 26.2% 15.9% 100.0%

-93-

Exhibit 6E Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

25 20 14

15 13 13

16 14

13 13 10

5 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=110)

(N=85)

(N=195)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

600 500 400

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

550 488

441

480

357

456 401

396

371 388

365

420 396 411

308

300 200 100 0 A or B Felonies (N=110)

C or D Felonies (N=85)

All Charges (N=195)

-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 2012 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

0 0 0 0

9.0

15.0

21.0

10.0

110

14.0

9 5 2 11

12.0 15.0 3.5 9.0

19 2 1 25

14.0 29.0 31.0 15.0

7 1 1 10

21.0 26.0 22.0 19.0

7 3 0 7

12.0 11.0 6.0

42 11 4 53

14.0 15.0 13.0 13.0

9.0

13.0

17.0

12.0

11 4 2 3

10.0 9.0 9.0 7.0

16 5 0 7

11.5 18.0 14.0

15 1 2 4

20.0 8.0 20.0 16.5

11 3 0 1

13.0 4.0 12.0

53 13 4 15

12.0 7.5 15.5 14.0

9.5

14.0

20.0

10.5

195

13.0

20 9 4 14

10.0 10.0 5.5 8.5

35 7 1 32

13.0 19.0 31.0 14.5

22 2 3 14

20.0 17.0 20.0 18.0

18 6 0 8

12.5 5.5 8.0

95 24 8 68

13.0 10.5 15.5 13.0

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 2012 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0 0 0

339.0

630.0

595.0

247.0

110

480.0

9 5 2 11

398.0 379.0 77.0 239.0

19 2 1 25

730.0 1046.0 1033.0 519.0

7 1 1 10

581.0 1155.0 630.0 518.0

7 3 0 7

428.0 195.0 98.0

42 11 4 53

550.5 488.0 357.0 441.0

271.0

513.0

416.0

343.0

388.0

11 4 2 3

273.0 301.0 262.5 175.0

16 5 0 7

522.5 686.0 490.0

15 1 2 4

420.0 351.0 462.0 376.0

11 3 0 1

350.0 246.0 256.0

53 13 4 15

401.0 308.0 395.5 371.0

276.0

568.0

490.0

291.5

195

420.0

20 9 4 14

384.5 339.0 122.5 238.5

35 7 1 32

515.5 715.0 1033.0 568.0

22 2 3 14

493.5 753.0 497.0 427.0

18 6 0 8

360.5 220.5 172.5

95 24 8 68

432.0 365.0 395.5 411.0

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 through 2012 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 and Table 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 200 released juveniles in 2012. This includes 174 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 26 who were released on bail. Eight released juveniles (4.0%) failed to appear as scheduled for at least one appearance in Criminal Court in 2012.17 As Exhibit 7 illustrates (see Table 7), the proportion of juveniles who failed to appear for a scheduled hearing was about the same for juveniles released on recognizance (4.0%) as for those released on bail (3.8%). 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 (8.1% FTA rate), two had been released in Manhattan (6.9% FTA rate), one had been released in the Bronx (3.6%) and one in Brooklyn (1.3%). The released juveniles scheduled to appear in the Bronx Criminal Court in 2012 were all scheduled to appear towards the end of the calendar year, after the reinstitution of the two-tier court system there in the fall of 2012. In 2012, pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court for a total of 291 released juveniles. This includes 212 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 79 who were released on bail. Nearly five 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 (5.2%) than for those released on bail (3.8%). Although more released juveniles missed a scheduled Supreme Court pretrial appearance in the Bronx (6) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in the Bronx (159), and consequently the FTA rate in the Bronx (3.8%) was the lowest, not the highest, across the boroughs. Instead, the juveniles in Manhattan (8.1% of 37 released juveniles) and Queens (9.1% of 22 released juveniles) were more likely to miss a scheduled appearance in the upper court. Four percent of the 73 released juveniles scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court failed to appear. The low volume of Queens cases with released juveniles scheduled for pre-disposition 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 2012 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

15%

5% 4%

0% Criminal Court (N=174)

(N=26)

(N=200)

Supreme Court (N=212)

(N=79)

(N=291)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2012 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

92.0%

96.6%

85.3%

74.0%

174

87.0%

1 79

1.3% 98.8% 100.0%

1 27

3.6% 96.4% 100.0%

2 27

6.9% 93.1% 100.0%

3 34

8.1% 91.9% 100.0%

7 167

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

8.0%

14.7%

26.0%

13.0%

0 7

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 5

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 12

7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

1 25

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

100.0%

200

100.0%

1 86

1.1% 98.9% 100.0%

1 28

3.4% 96.6% 100.0%

2 32

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

4 46

8.0% 92.0% 100.0%

8 192

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

68.5%

125

78.6%

70.3%

50.0%

212

72.9%

3 47

6.0% 94.0% 100.0%

5 120

4.0% 96.0% 100.0%

2 24

7.7% 92.3% 100.0%

1 10

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

11 201

5.2% 94.8% 100.0%

31.5%

21.4%

29.7%

50.0%

27.1%

0 23

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 33

2.9% 97.1% 100.0%

1 10

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

1 10

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

3 76

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

100.0%

159

100.0%

291

100.0%

3 70

4.1% 95.9% 100.0%

6 153

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

3 34

8.1% 91.9% 100.0%

2 20

9.1% 90.9% 100.0%

14 277

4.8% 95.2% 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 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* 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 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 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. 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree, a D felony, was repealed effective November, 2006, and is now replaced by 265.03 (3). ** But only where the underlying crime is also a JO offense.