Annualjuvenilereport13 by Administrator

Jerome E. McElroy

Executive Director

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2013

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Final Report

November 2014

52 Duane Street, Third Floor, New York, NY 10007-1231

The mission of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., is to assist the courts and the City in reducing unnecessary pretrial detention.

(646) 213-2500

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2013

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director

Annabel Mireles Research Assistant

Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

November 2014

This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org/library.php

ď&#x192;Ł 2014 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style: Gewirtz, Marian. 2014. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January through December 2013. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

-iii-

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ Purpose of the Report ......................................................................................................... Processing of Juvenile Offenders ....................................................................................... Design of the Report ........................................................................................................... Methodological Notes ........................................................................................................

1 1 2 3 4

OVERVIEW OF CASE VOLUME AT EACH DECISION POINT ........................... 5 Exhibit A: Total Case Volume, System Retention, and Release Decisions ....................... 6 SECTION 1. ARREST ..................................................................................................... Exhibit 1A.1: Arrest Charge Citywide ............................................................................... Exhibit 1A.2: Arrest Charge by Borough ........................................................................... Table 1a: Arrest Charge by Borough.................................................................................. Exhibit 1B: Age by Borough .............................................................................................. Table 1b: Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough ...................................................... Exhibit 1C: Gender by Borough ......................................................................................... Table 1c: Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough ................................................. Exhibit 1D: Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough ................................................................ Table 1d: Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough .........................

7 9 10 11 12 13 12 14 15 16

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT................................................ Exhibit 2A.1: Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide ..................................................... Exhibit 2A.2: Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough ................................................. Table 2a: Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough........................................................ Exhibit 2B: Arraignment Release Status by Borough ........................................................ Table 2b: Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ........... Exhibit 2C: Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide .......................................... Table 2c: Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough .......................................... Exhibit 2D: Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough .......................................... Table 2d: Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough .......................................................................................................................

17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION ................................................... Exhibit 3A: Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough ............................................ Table 3a: Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough ............................................... Exhibit 3B.1: Criminal Court Disposition by Borough ...................................................... Exhibit 3B.2: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide ....... Table 3b: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ........ Exhibit 3C: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................

31 35 36 37 38 39

-iv-

Table 3c: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ 42 Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... 43 SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT ................................. Exhibit 4A.1: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide ................................ Exhibit 4A.2: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough ............................ Table 4a: Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough ................................... Exhibit 4B: Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ........................ Table 4b: Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 4C: Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough .................... Table 4c: Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 4D: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide .............................................................................. Table 4d: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ..........................................................................

45 49 50 51 52

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION ...................................................... Exhibit 5A.1: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide ......................................... Exhibit 5A.2: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ..................................... Table 5a: Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ............................................ Exhibit 5B: Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ......................................................... Table 5b: Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ......... Exhibit 5C: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough .................. Table 5c: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ......................................................................................................... Exhibit 5D.1: Court Part at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ............................... Exhibit 5D.2: Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide ........................................................................................................ Table 5d: Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 5E: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide............................................................................................................................

59 63 64 65 66 67 68

53 54 55 56 57

69 70 71 72 73

-v-

Table 5e: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge at First Appearance by Borough .... Exhibit 5F: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide ....................................................................................................... Table 5f: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ................................................................................................... Exhibit 5G: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.............. Table 5g: Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ......... Exhibit 5H: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.............. Table 5h: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ........................ SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE ......................................................... Exhibit 6A: Supreme Court Sentence by Borough ............................................................. Table 6a: Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............. Exhibit 6B.1: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ Exhibit 6B.2: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough ................................... Table 6b: Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ......................................................................................................... Exhibit 6C.1: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide................................................................................................. Exhibit 6C.2: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough ............ Table 6c: Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............................................................................................ Exhibit 6D: Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Borough ............................................ Table 6d: Length of Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough ............................................................................................................................ Exhibit 6E: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide............................................................................................................................ Table 6e: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ....................................................................................................................... Exhibit 6F: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide.................. Table 6f: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ..

74 73 75 76 77 76 77 79 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 93 95

-vi-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES ........................................................ 97 Exhibit 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status .................................................................. 99 Table 7: Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juvenile Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2013 .................................................................... 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, 2013, (the second half of fiscal year 2013 and the first half of fiscal year 2014). 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 2013 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. 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 53 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, 2013, through December 31, 2013, there were 1,250 arrests for JO offenses (Exhibit A). More than a quarter of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;884 cases (71%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, 60 percent were transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (90%).

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

1,250

884 (71%)

366 (29%)

Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

3446

2 (<1%)

342 (99%)

164 (48%)

178 (524%)

CC Dispositions

327

131 (40%)

SC 1st Appearances

199

0 (0%)

199 (100%)

115 (59%)7

81 (41%)

SC Dispositions

227

25 (9%)

202 (89%)

116 (57%)8

86 (43%)

196 (60%) data not available data not available

The volume of arraignments is 344 and not 366 because the 22 Staten Island arraignments were excluded.

The base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 196 cases, not 199, 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. 8

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 202, not 227, because the release status data is limited to defendants who were convicted and awaiting sentence.

-7-

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 1,250 arrests for JO offenses in 2013, slightly more than the 1,234 arrests for JO offenses in 2012. Arrests for JO offenses in 2012 were the lowest in the reporting series. The volume of arrests for JO offenses is down sharply from the peak volume of roughly 2,400 arrests reported in 1998 and 1999. As indicated in both Exhibits 1A.1 and Table 1a, second-degree robbery was the most serious charge for nearly two thirds of the juvenile arrests in 2013. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for more than three quarters of juvenile arrests. Consistent with previous reporting periods, less than one percent of juvenile arrests were for an A felony. In 2013, each of the three A-felony arrests were for murder in the second degree indicating that there were no JO arrests for first-degree kidnapping or first-degree arson. The next most common arrest charges, citywide, after first- and second-degree robbery, were possession of a weapon in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, which accounted for eight percent and six percent, respectively, of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. Across the boroughs, type of offense at arrest varied somewhat in 2013 (Exhibit 1A.2). Second-degree robbery was the most frequent charge in each borough, accounting for roughly six of every ten JO arrests in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan and Staten Island, and three quarters of arrests in Queens. Arrests for first-degree robbery were most common in Staten Island (23%), followed by the Bronx (18%), Manhattan (16%), Brooklyn (15%) and Queens (10%). After first- and second- degree robbery, the next most common arrest charges were possession of a weapon in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, which accounted for eight percent and six percent, respectively, of JO arrests citywide during the reporting period. Arrests for possession of a weapon ranged from none of the JO arrests in Staten Island and only three percent of those in Queens, to six and eight percent, respectively, of arrests in Manhattan and the Bronx, and twelve percent in Brooklyn (Table 1a). Burglary arrests accounted for only three percent of Bronx JO arrests, and five and six percent of Brooklyn and Queens JO arrests, but nine percent of those in Manhattan and thirteen percent of those in Staten Island. The volume of murder cases involving juvenile offenders remained extremely small. Just one percent of JO arrests in 2013 were for either murder or attempted murder charges. Exhibit 1B shows that more than six of every ten juveniles arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of the offense. In all five boroughs, 60 percent or more of the youths arrested for JO offenses were fifteen at the time of the offense. Forty-five JO arrests in 2013 involved a juvenile who was sixteen or older at arrest, but was younger than sixteen at the time of the offense. There were no 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 by borough of arrest. In every borough, regardless of charge severity, fifteen-year-olds accounted for more JO arrests than did younger arrestees. Most arrestees for JO offenses were male (87% in 2013, ranging from 84% to 90% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. The percentage of female arrestees was sixteen percent in the Bronx, thirteen percent in Queens, twelve percent in Brooklyn, eleven percent in Manhattan, and nine percent in Staten Island. As in previous years, female arrestees were underrepresented in the more severe felony-offense categories: barely eight percent of the youths in B-felony JO arrests were female compared to fourteen percent of those charged with C

-8-

felonies at arrest. In both Queens and Staten Island, no females were charged with a B-felony JO offense at arrest though females accounted for sixteen percent and thirteen percent, respectively, of C-felony JO arrests in those boroughs. Citywide, the female proportion of juveniles charged with B felonies at arrest declined from thirteen percent in 2012 to eight percent in 2013 (Table 1c). Overall, JO arrestees were predominately male, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As shown in Exhibit 1D and Table 1d, three of every ten 2013 JO arrests in 2013 were docketed. The percent docketed is on the high end of the proportion docketed in recent years which ranged from 25 to 30 percent9.

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: 2013 JO Arrests

Other 16%

Murder 2 & Att. Murder 2 1%

Robbery 1 15%

Assault 1 3%

Robbery 2 64%

(N=1,250)

-10-

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge by Borough: 2013 JO Arrests Murder 2 & Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

100% 19%

14%

12% 4%

80%

15%

19%

16% 3%

60%

58% 62%

64%

60%

64%

74%

40%

20% 23% 15%

18%

15% 10%

16%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=425)

(N=324)

(N=202)

(N=246)

(N=53)

(N=1250)

-11-

Table 1a Arrest Charge by Borough for 2013 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

Bronx % N

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.4%

1 0 0

0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

25.3%

24.3%

16.3%

0.9% 18.5% 2.5% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2 33 6 0 6 2 0 0 0 0

1.0% 16.3% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 25 9 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

0.0% 10.2% 3.7% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

242

74.7%

152

75.2%

205

83.3%

206 9 27

63.6% 2.8% 8.3%

121 18 13

59.9% 8.9% 6.4%

182 15 8

74.0% 6.1% 3.3%

324

100.0%

202

100.0%

246

100.0%

0.2%

1 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0 0

20.2%

6 63 9 0 3 5 0 0 0 0

1.4% 14.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 60 8 0 6 3 0 2 0 0

338

79.5%

265 22 51

62.4% 5.2% 12.0%

425

100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

3 0 0

0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

28.3%

272

21.8%

3.8% 22.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

13 193 32 0 18 14 0 2 0 0

1.0% 15.4% 2.6% 0.0% 1.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

71.7%

975

78.0%

31 7 0

58.5% 13.2% 0.0%

805 71 99

64.4% 5.7% 7.9%

100.0% 1250

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: 2013 JO Arrests 14 and Younger

100% 80% 64%

60%

61%

67%

66%

63%

36%

40%

39%

33%

34%

37%

60% 40% 20% 0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=425)

(N=324)

Manhattan Queens (N=202)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=53)

(N=1250)

(N=246)

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough: 2013 JO Arrests

Males

Females

100% 12%

11%

13%

89%

87%

16%

80% 88%

84%

91%

13%

87%

60% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=425)

(N=324)

(N=202)

(N=246)

(N=53)

(N=1250)

-13-

Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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 %

Bronx % N

0.2%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

20.2%

0 22 64

0.0% 25.6% 74.4% 100.0%

0 30 52

338

79.5%

0 130 208

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.5%

0.4%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

25.3%

24.3%

16.3%

0.0% 36.6% 63.4% 100.0%

0 14 35

0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

0 16 24

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 3 12

242

74.7%

152

75.2%

205

83.3%

0.0% 38.5% 61.5% 100.0%

0 100 142

0.0% 41.3% 58.7% 100.0%

0 65 87

0.0% 42.8% 57.2% 100.0%

0 66 139

425

100.0%

324

100.0%

202

100.0%

0 152 273

0.0% 35.8% 64.2% 100.0%

0 130 194

0.0% 40.1% 59.9% 100.0%

0 79 123

0.0% 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 3

0.2%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

28.3%

272

21.8%

0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0 85 187

0.0% 31.3% 68.8% 100.0%

71.7%

975

78.0%

0.0% 32.2% 67.8% 100.0%

0 15 23

0.0% 39.5% 60.5% 100.0%

0 376 599

0.0% 38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

246

100.0%

1250

100.0%

0 82 164

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 18 35

0.0% 34.0% 66.0% 100.0%

0 461 789

0.0% 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

-14-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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 %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE %

0.5%

0.4%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

24.3%

16.3%

28.3%

272

21.8%

45 4

91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

40 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

251 21

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

152

75.2%

205

83.3%

71.7%

975

78.0%

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

135 17

88.8% 11.2% 100.0%

173 32

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

33 5

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

837 138

85.8% 14.2% 100.0%

324

100.0%

202

100.0%

246

100.0%

100.0% 1250

100.0%

273 51

84.3% 15.7% 100.0%

180 22

89.1% 10.9% 100.0%

214 32

87.0% 13.0% 100.0%

48 5

90.6% 1090 9.4% 160 100.0%

87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

0.2%

0.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

20.2%

25.3%

78 8

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

73 9

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

338

79.5%

242

74.7%

296 42

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

200 42

425

100.0%

375 50

88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

0.0%

0.2%

2 1

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

-15-

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough: 2013 JO Arrests Not Docketed

Docketed

100%

26%

29%

31%

29%

80%

42%

60%

40% 71%

69%

74%

71% 58%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

(N=425)

(N=324)

Manhattan Queens (N=202)

(N=246)

Staten Is.

Citywide

(N=53)

(N=1250)

-16-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Arrests

DOCKET STATUS A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

0.2%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

20.2%

19 67

22.1% 77.9% 100.0%

338

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

Queens %

Staten Island N %

0.2%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28.3%

272

21.8%

4 11

26.7% 73.3% 100.0%

78 194

28.7% 71.3% 100.0%

83.3%

71.7%

975

78.0%

172 33

83.9% 16.1% 100.0%

27 11

71.1% 28.9% 100.0%

803 172

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

100.0%

246

100.0%

100.0% 1250

100.0%

74.3% 25.7% 100.0%

181 65

73.6% 26.4% 100.0%

31 22

58.5% 41.5% 100.0%

884 366

70.7% 29.3% 100.0%

0.5%

0.4%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

25.3%

24.3%

16.3%

26 56

31.7% 68.3% 100.0%

21 28

42.9% 57.1% 100.0%

8 32

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

79.5%

242

74.7%

152

75.2%

205

272 66

80.5% 19.5% 100.0%

204 38

84.3% 15.7% 100.0%

128 24

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

425

100.0%

324

100.0%

202

Not Docketed Docketed TOTAL

292 133

68.7% 31.3% 100.0%

230 94

71.0% 29.0% 100.0%

150 52

B FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal C FELONIES:

CITYWIDE N % 3

Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal

0.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

0.0%

-17-

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 34410 cases arraigned on JO offenses during the 2013 reporting period, slightly more than the 323 in 2012 but 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 increase is not reflected in each borough. The increase was greater in Queens (27%, from 53 to 65) and Manhattan (23%, from 43 to 53), than in Brooklyn (6%, from 126 to 133) and the volume of arraignments declined by ten percent in the Bronx (from 103 to 93). The borough composition of JO arraignments in 2013 is similar to previous years. Brooklyn accounted for more JO arraignments (39%) than any other borough, followed by the Bronx (27%), Queens (19%), and Manhattan (15%), with only the Bronx proportion of arraignments, which declined from 32 percent, changing by more than two percentage points. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that 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 about the same as the proportion of robbery charges in the JO arrest population. However, firstdegree robbery charges were more prevalent among arraigned cases (44%, compared to 15% at arrest), and second-degree robbery charges were more common at arrest (65% compared to 37% 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 the result of the lower rates of non-prosecution for juveniles with lesser-severity arrests charges. As 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 third of cases for juveniles charged with a B felony at arrests 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 somewhat by borough, as illustrated in Table 2a. In 2013, the proportion of arraignments for first-degree robbery ranged from 40 percent in Manhattan to 42 percent in Queens, 44 percent in Brooklyn, and 47 percent in the Bronx. The differences are also small 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 2013, the Bronx showed the highest proportion of juveniles arraigned for first-degree robbery but the percent charged with second-degree robbery (30%) was the lowest proportion out of all the boroughs. In contrast, 38 percent of JO arraignments in Brooklyn and Manhattan and 46 percent in Queens were for second-degree robbery. First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for 77 percent of arraignment charges in Manhattan and the Bronx JO cases, and 82 percent in 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 and information on Staten Island cases is not presented in the sections after â&#x20AC;&#x153;Arrest.â&#x20AC;?

-18-

Brooklyn but accounted for 88 percent of arraignment charges in Queens JO cases. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges across the boroughs.11 There were two dismissals at Criminal Court arraignment in this reporting period (data not displayed). Exhibit 2B shows that 46 percent of juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide in 2013, lower than the ROR rate in recent reporting years (55% in 2012, 48% in 2011, 52% in 2010, 50% in 2009 and 49% in 2008). While the ROR rates at JO arraignments decreased from the previous reporting period, the ROR rates are comparable to those in 2011. The rate of ROR decreased in Manhattan (33%, down from 45%), Queens (41%, down from 47%), and the Bronx (50%, down from 74%), though the rate increased slightly in Brooklyn (50%, up from 46%). However, the 2013 ROR rates were nearly the same as for 2011 in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan but were still lower than the 58 percent ROR rate that year in the Bronx. Typically, if defendants are not released on recognizance, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. Only seven juveniles (2%) were released on bail at arraignment in 2013, a slight increase from the four juveniles (1%) released on bail at arraignment in 2012. Just under half of juvenile defendants in the Bronx (43%) and Brooklyn (49%) were detained at arraignment on bail or remand with no bail set, compared to six of every ten in Manhattan (58%) and Queens (59%). 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 2013, the ROR rate in arraignments for B felonies, the largest group of cases, was 35 percent (47% in 2012, 40% in 2011, 45% in 2010, and 41% in 2009) compared to 61 percent in arraignments for C felonies (67% in 2012, 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, the percentage of defendants released on recognizance was highest in Brooklyn (45%), compared to the Bronx (38%), Queens (21%), and Manhattan (18%). At the C-felony level, the ROR rate was highest in the Bronx (75%), compared to 63 percent in Queens, 58 percent in Brooklyn, and 48 percent in Manhattan. Exhibit 2C presents the release information for males and females in Criminal Court JO arraignments. In 2013, 82 percent of females were released on recognizance (a 13 percentage point increase from 2012), compared to 41 percent of males (an 11 percentage point decrease from 2012). The gender difference in ROR rates may, in part, reflect differences in the charge distribution by gender, but there were too few female juveniles arraigned in adult court to permit meaningful analysis of release rates by charge severity. Table 2d and Exhibit 2D display the release status set at arraignment by juvenile recommendation category, according to the juvenile release recommendation system, which was first implemented for testing in April 1996. Prior to that date, the interview data for juvenile defendants were provided without a release recommendation because the community ties criteria for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant 11

As noted in the introduction, from arraignment forward, “all boroughs” and “citywide” reporting excludes the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period. Data for JO cases in Staten Island is available upon request.

-19-

population. The juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 2013, 86 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated according to the protocol used for adults. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then 88 percent of arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation, a slight decrease from the 90 percent of juveniles arraigned in 2011, yet consistent with 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 three of the four largest boroughs in 2013. If the juveniles in the “Murder Charge” category are also subtracted from the calculation base, then 90 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court in 2013 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR were more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended (49%, compared to 38%). However, only 32 juveniles arraigned in 2013 were not recommended for release on recognizance in accordance with the juvenile release recommendation assessment.

-20-

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 2013 JO Arraignments

Att. Murder 2 3%

Robbery 2 37% Robbery 1 44%

Assault 1 7%

Other 9%

(N=344)

-22-

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough: 2013 JO Arraignments Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

100%

Other

3% 10%

10%

13%

11%

9% 9%

80%

38% 30%

60%

37%

46%

38%

40%

44% 47%

44%

40%

42%

20%

Brooklyn (N=133)

Bronx (N=93)

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=53)

(N=65)

(N=344)

-23-

Table 2a Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 2013 JO Arraignments

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 0

BOROUGH Manhattan N % % 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

55.6%

65.6%

50.9%

52.3%

196

57.0%

6 59 5 0 1 1 0 2 0 0

4.5% 44.4% 3.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

2 44 9 0 5 0 0 1 0 0

2.2% 47.3% 9.7% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

2 21 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

3.8% 39.6% 5.7% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 27 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 41.5% 9.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 151 23 0 8 1 0 3 0 0

2.9% 43.9% 6.7% 0.0% 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

44.4%

34.4%

49.1%

47.7%

148

43.0%

50 0 9

37.6% 0.0% 6.8%

28 1 3

30.1% 1.1% 3.2%

20 0 6

37.7% 0.0% 11.3%

30 0 1

46.2% 0.0% 1.5%

128 1 19

37.2% 0.3% 5.5%

133

100.0%

344

100.0%

-24-

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Release Status by Borough: 2013 JO Arraignments ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

100%

Remand

80% 43%

49%

51%

59% 58%

60% 3%

40% 6%

50%

46%

41%

20% 33%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=133)

(N=93)

(N=52)

(N=64)

(N=342)

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

55.6%

65.6%

51.9%

53.1%

196

57.3%

33 0 41 0

44.6% 0.0% 55.4% 0.0% 100.0%

23 2 33 3

37.7% 3.3% 54.1% 4.9% 100.0%

5 1 19 2

18.5% 3.7% 70.4% 7.4% 100.0%

7 0 27 0

20.6% 0.0% 79.4% 0.0% 100.0%

68 3 120 5

34.7% 1.5% 61.2% 2.6% 100.0%

44.4%

34.4%

48.1%

46.9%

146

42.7%

34 1 24 0

57.6% 1.7% 40.7% 0.0% 100.0%

24 1 7 0

75.0% 3.1% 21.9% 0.0% 100.0%

12 2 11 0

48.0% 8.0% 44.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 0 11 0

63.3% 0.0% 36.7% 0.0% 100.0%

89 4 53 0

61.0% 2.7% 36.3% 0.0% 100.0%

133

100.0%

342

100.0%

67 1 65 0

50.4% 0.8% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

47 3 40 3

50.5% 3.2% 43.0% 3.2% 100.0%

17 3 30 2

32.7% 5.8% 57.7% 3.8% 100.0%

26 0 38 0

40.6% 0.0% 59.4% 0.0% 100.0%

157 7 173 5

45.9% 2.0% 50.6% 1.5% 100.0%

-26-

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide: 2013 JO Arraignments

Remand 2%

ROR 41% Bail Set/Not Made 55%

Bail Set/Made 2%

Males (N=302)

Bail Set/Not Made 18%

ROR 82%

Females (N=40)

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 2013 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 %

Bronx N

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

118

88.7%

83.9%

88.5%

93.8%

302

88.3%

54 1 63 0

45.8% 0.8% 53.4% 0.0% 100.0%

37 3 35 3

47.4% 3.8% 44.9% 3.8% 100.0%

11 3 30 2

23.9% 6.5% 65.2% 4.3% 100.0%

22 0 38 0

36.7% 0.0% 63.3% 0.0% 100.0%

124 7 166 5

41.1% 2.3% 55.0% 1.7% 100.0%

11.3%

16.1%

11.5%

6.3%

11.7%

13 0 2 0

86.7% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 5 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

33 0 7 0

82.5% 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 100.0%

133

100.0%

342

100.0%

67 1 65 0

50.4% 0.8% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

47 3 40 3

50.5% 3.2% 43.0% 3.2% 100.0%

17 3 30 2

32.7% 5.8% 57.7% 3.8% 100.0%

26 0 38 0

40.6% 0.0% 59.4% 0.0% 100.0%

157 7 173 5

45.9% 2.0% 50.6% 1.5% 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: 2013 JO Arraignments J5--Recommended

J6--Not Recommended

J7c--Murder Charge

Recommendation Not Available

100%

1% 2% 6%

3% 7%

2% 2%

2% 4%

12%

10%

19%

80%

60%

90%

86%

40%

68%

20%

Brooklyn (N=133)

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=93)

(N=53)

(N=65)

(N=344)

-29-

Table 2d Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 2013 JO Arraignments

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

120

90.2%

90.3%

67.3%

87.5%

295

86.3%

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

63 1 56 0

52.5% 0.8% 46.7% 0.0% 100.0%

43 3 37 1

51.2% 3.6% 44.0% 1.2% 100.0%

15 1 18 1

42.9% 2.9% 51.4% 2.9% 100.0%

24 0 32 0

42.9% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 100.0%

145 5 143 2

49.2% 1.7% 48.5% 0.7% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

6.8%

6.5%

19.2%

10.9%

9.4%

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

4 0 5 0

44.4% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 1 1

66.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

2 0 8 0

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 5 0

28.6% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 19 1

37.5% 0.0% 59.4% 3.1% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0 0 0 0

3.0%

2.2%

3.8%

0 0 4 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 1

0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

1.1%

9.6%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 4 0

0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.0%

2.3%

0 1 5 2

0.0% 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 100.0%

1.6%

2.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 6 0

0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 0.0% 100.0%

133

100.0%

342

100.0%

67 1 65 0

50.4% 0.8% 48.9% 0.0% 100.0%

47 3 40 3

50.5% 3.2% 43.0% 3.2% 100.0%

17 3 30 2

32.7% 5.8% 57.7% 3.8% 100.0%

26 0 38 0

40.6% 0.0% 59.4% 0.0% 100.0%

157 7 173 5

45.9% 2.0% 50.6% 1.5% 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 327 dockets reached disposition 12 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, slightly more than the 315 dockets disposed in 2012 but much fewer than the 455 and 465 dockets disposed in 2011 and 2010. The small citywide increase in dispositions is reflected in the Bronx where dispositions increased from 84 in 2012 to 89 in 2013. However, the increase in dispositions was greater in Brooklyn, from 121 to 138. Dispositions decreased in Queens and Manhattan where the volumes declined from 59 and 51, respectively, to 50 for both boroughs. The citywide distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arraignment: robbery charges (either in the first- or second-degree) comprised 80 percent of disposition charges, eight percent were assault in the first degree, three percent were attempted murder in the second degree, and the remaining nine percent were for other JO charges. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 60 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; nearly as high as the 66 percent in 2012 and the 68 percent in 2011. Again there were borough differences in the rate of transfer to the upper court, as well as in the change in the rate of transfer from 2012. In 2013, as in the previous reporting period, the rate of transfer to Supreme Court was lowest in Queens (50% down from 53%) and the rate of transfer also changed little in Brooklyn (remained 59%). The highest rate of transfer was in Manhattan (72%), which also showed the largest percentage point increase (up from 55%). The largest decrease in transfers to Supreme Court was in the Bronx where the volume declined 32 percentage points from 92 percent to 60 percent. This decrease in Supreme Court dispositions in the Bronx reflects the return to the two-tier court system in that borough in October, 2012. Until then, the Bronx Criminal and Supreme Courts were merged to create a single, integrated court of criminal jurisdiction, which became effective in November, 2004. During that time, criminal cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx were transferred directly to Supreme Court for adjudication Not only was the rate of transfer to Supreme Court reduced by the return to the two-tier court system in the Bronx, but the rates of dismissal and transfer to the Family Court from the Criminal Court were also affected. In 2013, sixteen percent of Bronx cases were transferred to Family Court and 25 percent of cases were dismissed by the lower court, very similar to the Criminal Court disposition rates in the Bronx prior to court consolidation: In 2004, 22 percent were transferred to Family Court from Criminal Court and the 17 percent were dismissed in Criminal Court. Citywide, Criminal Court dispositions changed little. About fifteen percent of cases were transferred to Family Court, one fourth of cases were dismissed, and 60 percent were sent to Supreme Court. As in previous years, Manhattan had the highest rate of dismissal (28%, down from 45%, in 2012), along with Brooklyn (28%, down from 30%), followed by the Bronx (25%, 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-

up from 10%). Queens had the highest rate of transfer to Family Court (36%, up from 34%), followed by the Bronx (16%, up from 2%, in 2012). Of course, dismissal of the docket in Criminal Court did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. However, the wide range of dispositions across the boroughs may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and 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 2013 was higher for B-felony dockets (69%) than for Cfelony dockets (49%). The charge-severity difference in transfer rates is visible in each borough with a difference of 21 percentage points in both Manhattan and the Bronx, 20 percentage points in Brooklyn and thirteen in Queens. 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. Citywide, the medians in 2013 were changed little from the last reporting period. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court was three, an increase from two, and the median number of days in Criminal Court was 28, nearly the same as the 27 days in 2013. Median length of case in the lower court increased for juveniles charged with B felonies to a median of three appearances from two and to a median of nearly four weeks from fifteen days. Among juveniles with C-felony cases, the median number of appearances in the lower court remained three, but the number of days decreased to 29 from 41. The median number of appearances was three for juveniles released at the initial arraignment as well as for those held on bail. However, the median number of days was longer for the juveniles who were released on recognizance (47) than for the juveniles who were detained on bail (10). There are substantial differences in length of case in Criminal Court by borough of prosecution. Again, cases took longest to reach disposition in the lower court in Queens. The median number of appearances in Queens decreased from five to four, though the median number of days barely changed (83 down from 86). The median number of appearances also declined slightly in Manhattan (to 2, down from 3) but the number of days from arraignment to disposition in the lower court decreased dramatically in Manhattan, to five days from more than two months. The decrease in time in the lower court in Manhattan seems to reflect the high incidence of cases dismissed after lengthy court processing in that borough in 2012 since dismissed cases took a median of over five months in 2012 but a median of only fifteen days in 2013. In Brooklyn, the number of appearances (2 in both 2013 and 2012) and the number of 13

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

Removals represent the

-33-

days (32, down from 35) changed little. In the Bronx, the median number of appearances increased from only one in 2012 to a median of three, reflecting the return to the two-tier court system where there is no longer the (nearly) universal transfer of JO cases to the upper court from arraignment in Criminal Court that existed during court consolidation. 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: 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Murder 2

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

100% 9%

8% 16%

Other

10% 8%

10%

80%

37%

32%

38%

60%

54%

38%

40%

44%

48%

42% 34%

20%

32%

Brooklyn (N=138)

Bronx

(N=89)

Manhattan (N=50)

Queens (N=50)

Citywide (N=327)

-36-

Table 3a Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

56.5%

64.0%

48.0%

42.0%

180

55.0%

6 61 8 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

4.3% 44.2% 5.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

2 43 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

2.2% 48.3% 10.1% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 17 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

4.0% 34.0% 8.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 32.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 137 26 0 5 1 0 1 0 0

3.1% 41.9% 8.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

43.5%

36.0%

52.0%

58.0%

147

45.0%

51 0 9

37.0% 0.0% 6.5%

28 0 4

31.5% 0.0% 4.5%

19 0 7

38.0% 0.0% 14.0%

27 1 1

54.0% 2.0% 2.0%

125 1 21

38.2% 0.3% 6.4%

138

100.0%

327

100.0%

-37-

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough: 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Dismissals

Transfers to Supreme Court

Brooklyn (N=138)

12%

Bronx (N=89)

16%

59%

28%

60%

25%

Manhattan (N=50)

72%

28%

Queens (N=50)

36%

Citywide (N=327) 100%

Transfers to Family Court

15%

75%

50%

14%

50%

25%

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

60%

25%

50%

75%

Percentage Disposed in Supreme Court

100%

-38-

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions Transfers to Supreme Court

Dismissals

Transfers to Family Court

100

80 69% 60%

60 49% 40

30% 21%

20%

25% 15%

11%

A or B Felonies (N=179)

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=148)

(N=327)

-39-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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%

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 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:

56.5%

62.9%

48.0%

42.0%

179

54.7%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

20 5 53

25.6% 6.4% 67.9% 100.0%

10 8 38

17.9% 14.3% 67.9% 100.0%

4 0 20

16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 100.0%

3 6 12

14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 100.0%

37 19 123

20.7% 10.6% 68.7% 100.0%

C FELONIES:

43.5%

37.1%

52.0%

58.0%

148

45.3%

Dismissed Transferred to Family Court Transferred to Supreme Court Subtotal

19 12 29

31.7% 20.0% 48.3% 100.0%

12 6 15

36.4% 18.2% 45.5% 100.0%

10 0 16

38.5% 0.0% 61.5% 100.0%

4 12 13

13.8% 41.4% 44.8% 100.0%

45 30 73

30.4% 20.3% 49.3% 100.0%

138

100.0%

327

100.0%

39 17 82

28.3% 12.3% 59.4% 100.0%

22 14 53

24.7% 15.7% 59.6% 100.0%

14 0 36

28.0% 0.0% 72.0% 100.0%

7 18 25

14.0% 36.0% 50.0% 100.0%

82 49 196

25.1% 15.0% 59.9% 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: 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

6 5 4 3 2

2.5 2

1 0 0

A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=181)

(N=144)

(N=325)

-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 2013 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

3.0

2.0

5.5

180

3.0

38 0 40 0

3.0 2.0 -

24 0 29 3

3.0 3.0 5.0

4 1 17 2

2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0

6 0 16 0

6.0 4.5 -

72 1 102 5

3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

145

3.0

36 0 24 0

3.0 2.0 -

24 1 8 0

3.0 2.0 3.0 -

11 2 12 0

2.0 3.5 2.0 -

15 0 12 0

3.0 3.0 -

86 3 56 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

138

2.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

325

3.0

74 0 64 0

3.0 2.0 -

48 1 37 3

3.0 2.0 3.0 5.0

15 3 29 2

2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

21 0 28 0

4.0 4.0 -

158 4 158 5

3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0

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: 2013 JO Criminal Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

56 47 40.5

29 27.5

20 5

29 15

29 28 10 9.5

8 0

A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=181)

(N=144)

(N=325)

-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 2013 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

31.5

24.0

5.0

80.5

180

27.5

38 0 40 0

47.0 5.0 -

24 0 29 3

54.5 13.0 29.0

4 1 17 2

90.5 5.0 5.0 3.0

6 0 16 0

135.5 72.0 -

72 1 102 5

56.0 5.0 10.0 29.0

30.0

31.0

5.0

37.0

145

29.0

36 0 24 0

51.0 4.0 -

24 1 8 0

42.5 5.0 24.0 -

11 2 12 0

15.0 77.5 5.0 -

15 0 12 0

37.0 39.0 -

86 3 56 0

40.5 15.0 8.0 -

138

32.0

27.0

5.0

83.0

325

28.0

74 0 64 0

49.5 5.0 -

48 1 37 3

45.0 5.0 14.0 29.0

15 3 29 2

15.0 15.0 5.0 3.0

21 0 28 0

86.0 62.5 -

158 4 158 5

47.0 10.0 9.5 29.0

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 2013 (199) is lower than 2012 (220), 2011 (229), 2010 (301), 2009 (335) and much lower than in 2008 (429). The volume of cases arriving in the upper court decreased in two boroughs but increased in two boroughs. The large decrease in the Bronx (from 81 to 52) 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. The decrease was small in Queens (down to 27 from 30) and the increase was about as small in Manhattan (32 up from 30). However, in Brooklyn, the volume of first appearances in Supreme Court (88) was higher than in 2012 (79) and much higher than in 2011 (59). It is important to remember that the number of cases with a first appearance in Supreme Court since 2007 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 approximately threequarters (77%) of JO cases entering the upper court in 2013, about the same as in the previous reporting period. First-degree robbery charges made up fifteen percent of all juvenile arrests during 2013, but comprised 40 percent of cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court. B-felony charges accounted for just over a fifth of the JO arrests, but almost six of every ten cases that reached Supreme Court (Table 4a). C-felony charges comprised just almost eight of every ten JO arrests, but less than half of the JO cases that arrived in the upper court. In short, charges of higher severity were more likely to be represented among the JO cases that reached Supreme Court than were less serious charges. Exhibit 4B indicates that few defendants in JO cases that reached Supreme Court in 2013 pled guilty (8%) and 70 percent of juveniles pled not guilty at their first appearance. No cases were transferred to the Family Court or dismissed at their first appearance in Supreme Court. Most of the remaining cases (20%) 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 (26%), compared to barely eight percent in the Bronx, less than five percent in Brooklyn and just three percent in Manhattan. This finding reflects borough differences in plea policies and in the use of 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-

the Superior Court Information (SCI).15 The percentage of juvenile defendants who pled not guilty at the first appearance ranged from a high of 84 percent in Manhattan to 77 percent in Brooklyn, 64 percent in the Bronx, and 44 percent in Queens. On the other hand, cases in Queens (30%) were more likely to be continued at the first appearance compared to 25 percent of the Bronx JO cases, 17 percent of JO cases in Brooklyn and thirteen percent of Manhattan JO cases. 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 59 percent of cases. Nearly one third were held on bail and nine 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 53 percent of cases with B-felony charges and in 66 percent of cases with C-felony charges. Interestingly, there was not a big difference between juveniles who faced B-felony charges who were released on recognizance (37%) and their counterparts who faced lesser felony charges (46%). Borough differences in the release rates at the first appearance in the upper court were small except for the particularly low rate of ROR in Manhattan (31%), compared to Queens (41%), the Bronx (42%), and Brooklyn (44%). However, the proportion of juveniles who secured release on bail was lowest in the Bronx (12%) and highest in Manhattan (25%), followed by Queens (22%) and Brooklyn (17%). When release on bail and ROR at the first appearance in Supreme Court are considered together, the range in overall rates of release across the boroughs was smaller. Juveniles were more likely to be released in Queens (63%) and Brooklyn (61%) and less likely to be released in Manhattan (56%) and the Bronx (54%). Table 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 2013, citywide, it took a median of 23 days to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court, an increase of two days from 2012, which was a full week longer than the median number of days in 2011 (14). The citywide median number of days varied little by charge severity (23 days for B-felony cases and 21 days for C-felony cases). In 2013, the median time from lower to upper court also varied little by release status. Cases in which defendants were remanded with no bail set took longest (41 days) about a week and half longer than the median time for those released on recognizance, released on bail, or held on bail. Borough differences in median number of days from lower to upper court were wide. As depicted in Table 4d, the longest median time from Criminal Court to Supreme Court was in Brooklyn (34 days), followed by the Bronx (20 days), Queens (14 days) and Manhattan (9 days). The median decreased slightly from 2012 in Brooklyn and Manhattan, remained the same in Queens, and increased sharply in the Bronx from only five days in both 2012 and 2011. The 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-

greater elapsed time between Criminal and Supreme Court in the Bronx again reflects the return to a two-tiered court system such that cases continued at arraignment in the lower court are no longer automatically processed in the upper court but instead reach the upper court only after indictment or SCI. In SCI cases, defendants waive indictment at the last Criminal Court appearance and, typically, plead guilty in the upper court on the same day. SCIs were quite common in some boroughs in previous reporting periods. As recently as 2011, the median number of days elapsed between the lower and upper courts was only 1.5 days in Queens since the number of days is zero for SCI cases. A median of zero days in table 4d indicates that all of the JO cases in that borough, release status and charge severity category that came to Supreme Court arrived by SCI rather than by indictment. 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: 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Att. Murder 2 3%

Robbery 2 37% Robbery 1 40%

Assault 1 12%

Other 8%

(N=199)

-50Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough: 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Attempted Murder 2

100%

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other

8% 16% 7%

17%

80%

12%

29%

39%

60%

37%

48% 34%

40%

48%

41%

40%

28%

20%

37%

9% 2%

Brooklyn (N=88)

Bronx

(N=52)

Manhattan (N=32)

Queens (N=27)

Citywide (N=199)

-51-

Table 4a Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH 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 0

53.4%

69.2%

50.0%

44.4%

111

55.8%

2 36 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2.3% 40.9% 9.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 25 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

1.9% 48.1% 17.3% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9.4% 28.1% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 37.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 80 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

3.0% 40.2% 11.6% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

46.6%

30.8%

50.0%

55.6%

44.2%

34 0 7 0

38.6% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0%

15 0 1 0

28.8% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%

11 0 5 0

34.4% 0.0% 15.6% 0.0%

13 1 1 0

48.1% 3.7% 3.7% 0.0%

73 1 14 0

36.7% 0.5% 7.0% 0.0%

100.0%

199

100.0%

-52-

Exhibit 4B Disposition at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances Pled Guilty 100%

Pled Not Guilty 1%

Dismissed

Continued

Bench Warrant 2%

4% 12%

17%

20% 30%

25%

80%

1% 1%

60% 44% 77%

84%

40%

70%

64%

20% 26%

Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=88)

(N=52)

(N=32)

(N=27)

(N=199)

-53-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2013 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%

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0

B FELONIES:

53.4%

69.2%

50.0%

44.4%

111

55.8%

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

0 0 6 38 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 80.9% 4.3% 2.1% 100.0%

0 0 10 21 4 1

0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 58.3% 11.1% 2.8% 100.0%

0 0 3 12 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 18.8% 75.0% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 6 4 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 25 75 9 2

0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 67.6% 8.1% 1.8% 100.0%

C FELONIES:

46.6%

30.8%

50.0%

55.6%

44.2%

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

0 0 9 30 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 22.0% 73.2% 4.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 12 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 18.8% 75.0% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%

0 0 1 15 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 93.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 8 5 0

0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 53.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 15 65 7 1

0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 73.9% 8.0% 1.1% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

199

100.0%

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

0 0 15 68 4 1

0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 77.3% 4.5% 1.1% 100.0%

0 0 13 33 4 2

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 63.5% 7.7% 3.8% 100.0%

0 0 4 27 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 84.4% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 8 12 7 0

0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 44.4% 25.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 40 140 16 3

0.0% 0.0% 20.1% 70.4% 8.0% 1.5% 100.0%

-54-

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough: 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

100% 4%

Bail Set and Not Made 3% 7%

14%

80% 42%

25%

Remand

30%

41%

33%

60% 17%

22%

18%

12% 25%

40%

44%

20%

42%

41%

31%

0% Brooklyn (N=87)

Bronx (N=50)

Manhattan (N=32)

Queens (N=27)

Citywide (N=196)

-55-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 2013 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

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

52.9%

70.0%

50.0%

44.4%

109

55.6%

19 8 11 8

41.3% 17.4% 23.9% 17.4% 100.0%

12 4 17 2

34.3% 11.4% 48.6% 5.7% 100.0%

4 2 9 1

25.0% 12.5% 56.3% 6.3% 100.0%

5 4 3 0

41.7% 33.3% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

40 18 40 11

36.7% 16.5% 36.7% 10.1% 100.0%

47.1%

30.0%

50.0%

55.6%

44.4%

19 7 11 4

46.3% 17.1% 26.8% 9.8% 100.0%

9 2 4 0

60.0% 13.3% 26.7% 0.0% 100.0%

6 6 4 0

37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 2 5 2

40.0% 13.3% 33.3% 13.3% 100.0%

40 17 24 6

46.0% 19.5% 27.6% 6.9% 100.0%

100.0%

196

100.0%

38 15 22 12

43.7% 17.2% 25.3% 13.8% 100.0%

21 6 21 2

42.0% 12.0% 42.0% 4.0% 100.0%

10 8 13 1

31.3% 25.0% 40.6% 3.1% 100.0%

11 6 8 2

40.7% 22.2% 29.6% 7.4% 100.0%

80 35 64 17

40.8% 17.9% 32.7% 8.7% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status 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: 2013 JO First Supreme Court Appearances ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

60 50 41

37.5

33.5 30

26 22.5

21.5

22.5

10 0

A or B Felonies (N=109)

C Felonies (N=87)

All Charges (N=196)

-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 2013 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

0 0 0 0

33.0

22.0

8.5

14.0

109

23.0

19 8 11 8

23.0 46.5 45.0 41.5

12 4 17 2

20.0 29.5 22.0 38.0

4 2 9 1

17.0 11.0 8.0 7.0

5 4 3 0

15.0 15.5 14.0 -

40 18 40 11

22.5 37.5 21.5 41.0

35.0

14.0

12.0

8.0

21.0

19 7 11 4

25.0 39.0 39.0 42.0

9 2 4 0

19.0 1.0 21.0 -

6 6 4 0

8.0 15.0 12.0 -

6 2 5 2

8.0 7.0 19.0 0.0

40 17 24 6

21.0 17.0 26.0 33.5

34.0

20.0

9.0

14.0

196

23.0

38 15 22 12

24.5 45.0 40.5 42.0

21 6 21 2

19.0 9.5 22.0 38.0

10 8 13 1

9.0 15.0 9.0 7.0

11 6 8 2

14.0 11.0 16.5 0.0

80 35 64 17

22.0 23.0 22.5 41.0

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 2013, 227 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court citywide, fewer than in 2012 (247), 2011 (320), or 2010 (307). The decrease is not reflected in all of the boroughs. Most of the citywide decrease seems to be due to the decrease in upper court dispositions in the Bronx which, as noted earlier, is a consequence of the end of court consolidation. In the Bronx, 77 JO cases reached disposition in the Supreme Court, compared to 114 in the previous reporting period. The volume of JO dispositions changed little in two boroughs, decreasing slightly in Manhattan to 34 from 38 and remaining at 31 in Queens. In Brooklyn, however, 85 JO cases reached disposition compared to only 64 in 2012. The numbers of disposed cases reported since 2007 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 (46% and 32%, respectively). First- and second-degree robbery together accounted for more than three-quarters of Supreme Court dispositions. After robbery charges, assault charges were the most frequent charge, accounting for seven percent of upper court dispositions. There were no JO cases disposed at the A-felony level. B-felony charges accounted for six of every ten disposed cases and C- or D-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 only a quarter of those in Manhattan to half or nearly half of cases disposed in the other boroughs. The boroughs also differ in the proportion of cases disposed at the second-degree robbery level: only a quarter of cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx (both 25%) were disposed with second-degree robbery charges, compared to four of every ten in Queens (42%) and more than half of those disposed in Manhattan (56%). Similarly, more than two thirds of JO cases disposed in Brooklyn or the Bronx were charged with a B felony at disposition, compared to nearly half of cases disposed in Queens but little more than a third of those disposed in Manhattan. Once a JO case was filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate was very high in every borough (Exhibit 5B and Table 5b). Overall, nearly nine 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 and Queens followed by 85 percent in Manhattan and 84 percent in the Bronx. The jump in rate of conviction in the Bronx (from 61% in 2012) reflects the return to the two-tier court system in that borough in October, 2012. Between 2004 and 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, since the return to the two-tier system from the consolidation of the Bronx courts, many of the cases that were not convicted in the upper court in previous years are cases that 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 at the B-felony level were more likely to yield convictions (91%) than cases disposed at the C- or D-felony level (86%). However, this varied by borough. The difference was wide in Manhattan (100% at the B-felony level compared to 77% among those disposed on lesser felonies), and the Bronx (87%, compared to 77%) and narrow in Queens (93% at the B-felony level, compared to 94% for those disposed on lesser felonies) and Brooklyn (91%, compared to 96%). In 2013, 202 JO cases were adjourned for sentencing, slightly more than in 2012 (192), but fewer than in 2011 (226) or any previous 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 57 percent of JO cases that were adjourned for sentencing in Supreme Court during the reporting period, lower than the 61 percent released at conviction in 2012 and lower than the 60 to 66 percent released pending sentencing across previous years). Forty-six percent of juveniles were released on recognizance awaiting sentencing during 2013, about the same as in 2012 (47%) and eleven percent were released on bail, compared to fourteen percent in 2012. 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 ten percent of disposed JO cases was the convicted juvenile in detention because the bail could not be met. The convicted juveniles were no more likely to be remanded with no bail set in 2013 (34%) than in 2012 (35%). 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 2013, the highest rates of release (either on recognizance or bail) at conviction were in the Bronx and Queens where juveniles were released at conviction in more than six of every ten cases. Juveniles were released at conviction in more than half of the cases adjourned for sentencing in Brooklyn (56%), and in fewer than half in Manhattan (45%). Juveniles convicted in the Bronx were more likely to be released on recognizance (51%) than those in other boroughs and those convictions in Manhattan (38%) were least likely to be released on recognizance. Juveniles convicted in Queens were more likely to be released on bail (14%) than were juveniles in any boroughs and those convicted in Manhattan were least likely to be released on bail (7%). Juveniles in Manhattan were far more likely to be remanded with no bail set at disposition (48%) compared to those in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx (39%, 34%, and 20%, 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, nearly eight of every ten 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 (88%), followed by Brooklyn (85%) and Queens (81%) and the lowest percent disposed in a JO Part was in the Bronx (65%). Citywide, the proportion of JO cases disposed in JO Parts (78%) was similar to 2012 (76%). The use of the JO Parts remained the same in the Bronx (65%), decreased a bit in both Manhattan (88%, down from 97%) and Brooklyn (85%, down from 92%), but increased in Queens (81%, up from 58%). The increase in the proportion of JO 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

-61-

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 2012, the citywide conviction rate was much higher for the JO Parts: more than nine of every ten cases disposed in a JO Part resulted in conviction, compared to just over three quarters of the cases disposed in other parts. The conviction rate for non-JO Parts primarily reflects the conviction rate in non-JO Parts in Brooklyn and the Bronx, since these boroughs account for the bulk (78%) of those disposed in non-JO Parts. In Manhattan and Queens, 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 2013, it took a median of eight appearances and 210 days for JO cases to reach disposition in Supreme Court, down from eight appearances and 245 days in 2012. JO cases with B-felony charges took a median of nine appearances and 232 days to reach disposition, and JO cases with C-felony charges took seven appearances and 190 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 2013, it took a median of only six appearances to reach disposition in Queens compared to seven in Brooklyn, ten in Manhattan and twelve in the Bronx. Since 2012, the median number of appearances to disposition remained the same in Queens, and increased by one additional appearance in Brooklyn, in the Bronx and Queens and decreased in Manhattan (from 12.5 to 11) The median number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from 106 days in Queens (up from 70) to 156 in Brooklyn (down from 220), 238 days in Manhattan (down from 309), and 449 days in the Bronx (up from 440, but still significantly higher than the 2011 median of 169 days in 2011). Of course, the short length of case in upper court in the Bronx in previous reporting periods reflects Supreme Court dispositions for cases that were not indicted but were disposed in the upper court as a consequence of court consolidation. 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 2013, 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 eight appearances and over seven months to reach disposition. The number of appearances was seven for the cases with juveniles released on bail, but nine for those held on bail, though bail-release cases took a little less than seven months to reach disposition, and bail-held cases took nearly as long as did the cases for juveniles who were released on recognizance. When the juveniles were remanded with no bail set at the first appearance in the upper court, the case took a median of only four appearances and a little over three months to reach disposition.

-62-

Tables 5g and 5h and Exhibits 5G and 5H present similar information, comparing cases disposed in the JO Parts to those disposed elsewhere, for different levels of charge severity at disposition, citywide. In contrast to the previous reporting period, the median number of appearances and days to disposition in 2013 was higher in the non-JO Parts (9 appearances and 231 days), compared to JO Parts (8 appearances and 194 days). These findings reflect the borough differences that persist among the cases prosecuted in both JO Parts and non-JO Parts. The median number of appearances in the JO Part was lowest in Queens and Brooklyn (both 6), and higher in the Bronx (11) and Manhattan (12). Cases took a median of about four months to reach disposition in the JO Part in Queens and five months in Brooklyn, compared to nearly eight months in Manhattan, and a year in the Bronx. In non-JO Parts the median number of appearances was also lowest in Queens (1) followed by Brooklyn (8), then Manhattan (10) and the Bronx (15). However, the borough differences in processing time were much greater for cases in non-JO Parts. In Queens the median number of days to reach disposition in non-JO Parts was zero. This finding most probably reflects the use of SCIs, which generally reach disposition faster than other cases, and are more likely to be completed in non-JO Parts, although there were only six JO cases disposed in a non-JO Part in Queens in 2013. Cases in the JO Parts reach the upper court primarily through indictment, while the cases in the non-JO Parts include 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. Non-JO Part cases took a median of five months to reach disposition in Brooklyn, almost eleven months in Manhattan (only five cases), and nearly two years in the Bronx. Citywide the median number of appearances to disposition in Supreme Court in a JO Part in 2013 decreased by one appearance from 2012, and the number of days to disposition decreased by more than three months. In contrast, the median number of appearances to disposition in non-JO Parts increased sharply from only two appearances in 2012 to nine in 2013 and the median number of days increased from only 45 in 2012 to 231 in 2013. The change in length of case within the JO Parts and the JO Part versus non-JO Part comparisons, above, suggest that the citywide decrease in length of case discussed above reflects the decrease in the proportion of cases from the Bronx, a borough with a very long length of case (from 46% to 34%) and a concomitant increase in the proportion of cases from Brooklyn, a borough with a shorter length of case (from 26% to 37%), in addition to the effects of the decline in the use of SCIs in JO cases, and change in the structure of the Bronx courts.

-63-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Non-JO Offenses 3% Other JO Offenses 9%

Assault 1 7%

Robbery 1 45% Robbery 2 32%

Att. Murder 2 4%

(N=225)

-64-

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Attempted Murder 2

Robbery 1

Robbery 2

Assault 1

Other JO Offenses

Non-JO Offenses

100%

10%

80%

12%

3% 6%

3% 9% 7%

12% 24% 42%

32%

26%

60%

56%

40% 50% 45%

49%

45%

20%

26%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

(N=86)

(N=74)

(N=34)

Queens

Citywide

(N=31)

(N=225)

-65-

Table 5a Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Kidnapping 1: (135.25) Arson 1: (150.20) TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Assault 1: (120.10) Manslaughter 1: (125.20) Rape 1: (130.35) Sodomy 1: (130.50) Agg. Sex Abuse: (130.70) Burglary 1: (140.30) Arson 2: (150.15) Att. Kidnapping 1: (110-135.25) TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Poss. Weapon 2: (265.03) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) 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 % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

67.1%

70.1%

35.3%

48.4%

138

60.8%

7 43 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 0

8.2% 50.6% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 0.0%

1 39 10 2 0 1 0 1 0 0

1.3% 50.6% 13.0% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.9% 26.5% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 45.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

9 105 16 3 0 1 0 2 2 0

4.0% 46.3% 7.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

32.9%

29.9%

64.7%

51.6%

39.2%

21 1 3 0 3

24.7% 1.2% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

19 0 3 0 1

24.7% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.3%

19 0 3 0 0

55.9% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0%

13 1 1 0 1

41.9% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2%

72 2 10 0 5

31.7% 0.9% 4.4% 0.0% 2.2%

100.0%

227

100.0%

-66-

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Conviction

100%

No Conviction

12%

15%

10%

80%

60%

93%

94%

88%

85%

40%

90%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=86)

(N=74)

(N=34)

(N=31)

(N=225)

-67-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition* by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES: Conviction No Conviction Subtotal B FELONIES:

Brooklyn % 0

0.0%

0 0

Bronx N

% 0

0.0%

0 0

Manhattan N % 0

Queens %

0.0%

0 0

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

0 0

67.1%

71.4%

35.3%

48.4%

139

61.2%

52 5

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

48 7

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

12 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

126 13

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

32.9%

28.6%

64.7%

51.6%

38.8%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal

27 1

96.4% 3.6% 100.0%

17 5

77.3% 22.7% 100.0%

17 5

77.3% 22.7% 100.0%

15 1

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

76 12

86.4% 13.6% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

227

100.0%

Conviction No Conviction TOTAL

79 6

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

65 12

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

29 5

85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

29 2

93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

202 25

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

Conviction No Conviction Subtotal C OR D FELONIES:

-68-

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

100%

20%

80%

34%

39% 48% 17%

60%

12%

14% 11%

10%

7% 7%

40%

51%

48%

45%

20%

46%

38%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=80)

(N=65)

(N=29)

(N=203)

-69-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

65.8%

73.8%

41.4%

48.3%

126

62.4%

22 4 3 23

42.3% 7.7% 5.8% 44.2% 100.0%

23 6 10 9

47.9% 12.5% 20.8% 18.8% 100.0%

4 1 2 5

33.3% 8.3% 16.7% 41.7% 100.0%

6 3 0 5

42.9% 21.4% 0.0% 35.7% 100.0%

55 14 15 42

43.7% 11.1% 11.9% 33.3% 100.0%

34.2%

26.2%

58.6%

51.7%

37.6%

14 4 1 8

51.9% 14.8% 3.7% 29.6% 100.0%

10 2 1 4

58.8% 11.8% 5.9% 23.5% 100.0%

7 1 0 9

41.2% 5.9% 0.0% 52.9% 100.0%

8 1 1 5

53.3% 6.7% 6.7% 33.3% 100.0%

39 8 3 26

51.3% 10.5% 3.9% 34.2% 100.0%

100.0%

202

100.0%

36 8 4 31

45.6% 10.1% 5.1% 39.2% 100.0%

33 8 11 13

50.8% 12.3% 16.9% 20.0% 100.0%

11 2 2 14

37.9% 6.9% 6.9% 48.3% 100.0%

14 4 1 10

48.3% 13.8% 3.4% 34.5% 100.0%

94 22 18 68

46.5% 10.9% 8.9% 33.7% 100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages in shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes cases for which the release status at Supreme Court disposition was not available because the case was transferred to Family Court or for which the release status was not applicable because the case was dismissed, acquitted, or abated by death. 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: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

100% 13%

15%

19%

22%

85%

81%

78%

35%

80%

60% 87%

40%

65%

20%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=85)

(N=77)

(N=34)

(N=31)

(N=227)

-71-

Exhibit 5D.2 Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions Dismissed 100%

Transferred to Family Court

95%

Convicted 94%

91% 82%

78%

80%

71%

60%

40%

20%

19%

14% 8% 2% 3%

16%

10%

Non-JO Part

JO Part

4% 2%

0% JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=137)

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=88)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Charges (N=225)

-72Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition* by Court Part by Charge Severity at Disposition by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 0

0.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

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

67.1%

71.4%

35.3%

48.4%

139

61.2%

47 3 1 51

92.2% 5.9% 2.0% 100.0%

34 0 4 38

89.5% 0.0% 10.5% 100.0%

10 0 0 10

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 1 0 14

92.9% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0%

104 4 5 113

92.0% 3.5% 4.4% 100.0%

5 0 1 6

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

14 0 3 17

82.4% 0.0% 17.6% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22 0 4 26

84.6% 0.0% 15.4% 100.0%

32.9%

28.6%

64.7%

51.6%

38.8%

22 1 0 23

95.7% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 0 12

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 3 19

84.2% 0.0% 15.8% 100.0%

10 0 1 11

90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

60 1 4 65

92.3% 1.5% 6.2% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 5 10

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 2 0 3

33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16 2 5 23

69.6% 8.7% 21.7% 100.0%

100.0%

227

100.0%

69 4 1 74

93.2% 5.4% 1.4% 100.0%

46 0 4 50

92.0% 0.0% 8.0% 100.0%

26 0 3 29

89.7% 0.0% 10.3% 100.0%

23 1 1 25

92.0% 4.0% 4.0% 100.0%

164 5 9 178

92.1% 2.8% 5.1% 100.0%

10 0 1 11

90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

19 0 8 27

70.4% 0.0% 29.6% 100.0%

3 2 0 5

60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

38 2 9 49

77.6% 4.1% 18.4% 100.0%

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

-73Exhibit 5E Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

20 16 12 8

7.5 7.5 4

8 4

0 A or B Felonies

C Felonies

(N=134)

(N=89)

All Charges (N=223)

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: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

400 300 234 200

228 188

161

210

207 192.5

193

217

120.5

100 14 0 A or B Felonies

C Felonies

All Charges

(N=134)

(N=89)

(N=223)

-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 2013 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Manhattan Bronx N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

19.5

13.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0

9.0 30.0 -

0 0 0 1

13.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

9.0 30.0 13.0

7.0

12.0

13.0

5.5

133

8.0

24 5 15 11

7.0 7.0 6.0 4.0

29 5 20 1

13.0 10.0 12.5 1.0

3 0 7 1

2.0 14.0 10.0

6 3 3 0

5.5 5.0 6.0 -

62 13 45 13

8.5 6.0 9.0 4.0

6.0

9.0

10.0

6.0

8.0

18 3 5 3

6.5 11.0 5.0 7.0

15 2 2 0

10.0 5.5 12.0 -

6 5 11 0

8.0 12.0 12.0 -

5 4 8 2

3.0 6.5 8.5 1.0

44 14 26 5

8.0 9.0 8.5 3.0

6.5

12.0

11.0

6.0

225

8.0

42 8 20 14

7.0 7.5 6.0 5.5

45 7 23 1

12.0 10.0 13.0 1.0

9 5 18 2

8.0 12.0 13.0 11.5

11 7 11 2

5.0 6.0 8.0 1.0

107 27 72 19

8.0 7.0 9.0 4.0

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 2013 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Brooklyn Median N

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median Median N

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

942.0

599.0

679.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0

679.0 1206.0 -

0 0 0 1

599.0

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1

679.0 1206.0 599.0

182.0

453.0

284.0

85.5

133

221.0

24 5 15 11

185.5 198.0 112.0 98.0

29 5 20 1

639.0 315.5 316.0 0.0

3 0 7 1

18.0 284.0 456.0

6 3 3 0

138.5 58.0 88.0 -

62 13 45 13

239.0 161.0 228.0 98.0

123.0

392.0

227.0

121.0

188.0

18 3 5 3

133.0 221.0 64.0 135.0

15 2 2 0

366.0 742.5 389.0 -

6 5 11 0

214.0 245.0 222.0 -

5 4 8 2

25.0 120.0 211.5 0.0

44 14 26 5

188.0 207.0 192.5 14.0

155.0

445.0

238.5

106.0

225

203.0

42 8 20 14

161.0 209.5 90.0 116.5

45 7 23 1

500.0 466.0 333.0 0.0

9 5 18 2

196.0 245.0 282.0 527.5

11 7 11 2

100.0 83.0 142.0 0.0

107 27 72 19

223.0 193.0 217.5 98.0

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: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

20 15 10.5 10

5 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=137)

(N=88)

(N=225)

Exhibit 5H Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JO Part

Non-JO Part

400 321.5 300 228

210 200

180

196

188.5

100 0 A or B Felonies (N=137)

C or D Felonies (N=88)

All Charges (N=225)

-77-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART

Brooklyn Median N

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0

7.0

12.0

13.5

6.0

139

9.0

51 6

7.0 8.0

38 17

12.0 15.0

10 2

13.5 19.0

14 1

6.0 1.0

113 26

8.0 13.0

5.5

10.0

9.5

5.0

7.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

23 5

5.0 8.0

12 10

10.0 16.5

19 3

9.0 10.0

11 5

7.0 1.0

65 23

7.0 8.0

ALL CHARGES:

7.0

12.0

11.0

6.0

227

8.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

74 11

6.0 8.0

50 27

11.0 15.0

29 5

12.0 10.0

25 6

6.0 1.0

178 49

8.0 9.0

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

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

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

COURT PART

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

0 0

182.0

450.0

372.0

106.0

139

232.0

51 6

182.0 147.5

38 17

397.5 679.0

10 2

319.5 550.0

14 1

107.5 0.0

113 26

221.0 399.5

112.0

430.0

219.5

109.5

190.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

23 5

105.0 156.0

12 10

351.0 902.0

19 3

222.0 196.0

11 5

131.0 0.0

65 23

161.0 198.0

ALL CHARGES:

156.0

449.0

238.5

106.0

227

210.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

74 11

156.0 156.0

50 27

380.5 679.0

29 5

232.0 320.0

25 6

121.0 0.0

178 49

194.0 231.0

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

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

-78-

-79-

SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Exhibit 6A presents the sentences imposed in Supreme Court, by borough, and Table 6a provides the detailed distribution for each conviction-charge severity category. A total of 236 JO cases reached sentencing in the Supreme Court during the reporting period, nearly twenty percent more than in 2012 (197), but comparable to recent reporting periods: 221 in 2011, 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 2013 in Brooklyn (94, up from 47) and Queens (42, up from 32) than in 2012, but fewer cases reached sentencing in Manhattan (36, down from 42) and the Bronx (64, down from 76). Brooklyn cases account for four of every ten sentences in JO cases in 2013 compared to less than a quarter of those in 2012. Bronx cases account for just over a quarter of sentences in 2013, down from nearly four of every ten in 2012. Manhattan sentences also account for a smaller proportion of the citywide total in 2013 (15%) compared to 2012 (21%) and the proportion of sentences from Queens changed little (18%, compared to 16%). Citywide, more than half (54%) of sentences in JO cases in 2013 were custodial, consistent with sentencing in 2012 (54%), and higher than in 2011 (42%), 2010 and 2009 (both 47%), but lower than in 2008 (59%). Custodial sentences include an imprisonment sentence (51%, down from 53% in 2012, up from 37% in 2011, 45% in 2010 and 41% in 2009) or a “split” sentence including both imprisonment and probation (3% compared to 2% in 2012 and 2010, 5% in 2011 and 6% in 2009). In 2013, as shown in Table 6a, sentences in JO cases in Brooklyn (64%) and Manhattan (61%) were more likely to be incarcerative than those in other boroughs. However, the rate of incarcerative sentences was much higher than in 2012 in Brooklyn (55%) and much lower than in 2012 in Manhattan (71%). The use of incarcerative sentences decreased in the Bronx (down to 44% from 50%) and changed little in Queens (43%, up from 41%). As Table 6a indicates, the likelihood of an incarcerative sentence in 2013 was higher for juveniles convicted at the B-felony level (59%, down from 64% in 2012) than for juveniles convicted at lower felony levels (46% up from 42% in 2012). Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences in the JO Parts to those given in non-JO Parts, for different conviction-charge severities, citywide, in 2013. Sentences in non-JO Parts were more likely to require imprisonment (58%, up from 39%) than were sentence in JO Parts (53%, down from 58%). “Split” sentences (requiring both imprisonment and probation) were uncommon among JO cases: in 2013 only eight sentences in JO cases were “split” sentences, four in a JO Part and four in a non-JO Part. Exhibit 6B.2 and Table 6b presents the sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts for each borough in 2013. However, the low volume of cases in certain borough-court part categories precludes meaningful comparisons in those boroughs. In Manhattan (1), Brooklyn (7) and Queens (12), sentences were rarely given in non-JO Parts. Furthermore, any citywide differences in types of sentences in the JO and non-JO Parts are more likely to reflect the use or non-use of JO Parts in the boroughs and the specific sentencing practices of the particular boroughs rather than any intrinsic differences in sentencing in JO versus non-JO Parts. As mentioned above, a quarter of all sentences in JO cases in 2013 were from the Bronx, but Bronx cases account for over half (53%) of all the sentences in the non-JO Parts in 2013, so citywide sentences in non-JO Parts are more likely to reflect patterns from that borough than are the

-80-

citywide sentences in JO Parts. Citywide comparisons are affected by the volume of cases from the various boroughs, 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 83 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 JO Parts were slightly more likely to receive YO status (84%) than were their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (79%). Juveniles sentenced the JO Part in Manhattan (63%) were less likely to receive YO status than were their counterparts in Brooklyn (86%), the Bronx or Queens (both 93%). 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 2013 (128) than in 2012 (107), 2011 (93), and 2010 (108), but the volume was about the same in earlier reporting periods (125 in 2009, 133 in 2008, and 132 in 2007). The volume of incarcerative sentences increased in Brooklyn (from 26 to 60) and Queens (from 13 to 18), but decreased in Manhattan (from 30 to 22) and the Bronx (from 38 to 28). Citywide, 36 percent of incarcerative sentences were for a year or less, a comparable to the 35 percent in 2012, and the 41 percent in 2011, but higher than the 27 percent in 2010. Nearly three of every ten (29%) incarcerative sentences in 2013 were for one to three years, an increase from 23 percent in 2012. However, the percent of incarcerative sentences for two to six years increased to 23 percent from sixteen percent in 2012. 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 four incarcerative sentences at the Bfelony level were for a year or less compared percent to more than half of those at the C- or Dfelony 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 eleven times in Supreme Court, two fewer than the median in 2012 and one less than the median in 2011, 2010, and 2009. A median of one year (364) days elapsed between the first appearance in Supreme Court and sentencing for juveniles sentenced in 2013, which is also shorter than the median number of days in 2012 (420), 2011 (386), 2010 (402), and 2009 (370). It takes a long time for JO cases to reach sentencing in the Supreme Courts and borough differences in length of case are striking. JO cases reached sentencing much more swiftly in Brooklyn (a median of 9 appearances and 251 days) and Queens (10 appearances and 262 days) than in the Bronx (15 appearances and 596 days) or Manhattan (24 appearances and 644 days). However, the medians changed very little since the previous reporting period in Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens, but increased by four appearances and five months in Manhattan. The citywide 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-

decrease in processing time for JO cases in the Supreme Court by two appearances and nearly two months reflects the change in the borough distribution of cases that reached sentencing. In 2013, Brooklyn cases, which were processed the fastest across the boroughs, comprised four of every ten sentenced JO cases but Brooklyn cases accounted for only a quarter of those that reached sentencing in 2012. 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 twelve appearances and 350 days to reach sentencing in Supreme Court, while JO cases with C-felony charges at conviction took eleven appearances and 392 days to reach sentencing (Exhibits 6E and 6F). In 2012, it was the B-felony cases that took longer (14 appearances, 480 days) compared to C-felony cases (12 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: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imp. and Probation

Probation

Other

100% 6%

11%

3% 22%

80%

30% 35%

17%

50%

44% 3%

60% 3%

40%

10% 61%

61% 51% 42%

20%

33%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=94)

(N=64)

(N=36)

(N=42)

(N=236)

-84-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 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

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

2.4%

0.4%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

64.9%

62.5%

38.9%

54.8%

138

58.5%

39 2 16 4

63.9% 3.3% 26.2% 6.6% 100.0%

20 1 14 5

50.0% 2.5% 35.0% 12.5% 100.0%

12 0 1 1

85.7% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 100.0%

8 0 14 1

34.8% 0.0% 60.9% 4.3% 100.0%

79 3 45 11

57.2% 2.2% 32.6% 8.0% 100.0%

35.1%

37.5%

61.1%

42.9%

41.1%

18 1 12 2

54.5% 3.0% 36.4% 6.1% 100.0%

7 0 14 3

29.2% 0.0% 58.3% 12.5% 100.0%

10 0 5 7

45.5% 0.0% 22.7% 31.8% 100.0%

5 4 7 2

27.8% 22.2% 38.9% 11.1% 100.0%

40 5 38 14

41.2% 5.2% 39.2% 14.4% 100.0%

100.0%

236

100.0%

57 3 28 6

60.6% 3.2% 29.8% 6.4% 100.0%

27 1 28 8

42.2% 1.6% 43.8% 12.5% 100.0%

22 0 6 8

61.1% 0.0% 16.7% 22.2% 100.0%

14 4 21 3

33.3% 9.5% 50.0% 7.1% 100.0%

120 8 83 25

50.8% 3.4% 35.2% 10.6% 100.0%

-85-

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imprisonment/Prob.

Probation

Other

80% 67

70% 60%

56 50

40%

35 30

30%

25 17

20% 10%

50%

9 4

0% JO Part

Non-JO Part

A or B Felonies (N=140)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

C or D Felonies (N=97)

JO Part

Non-JO Part

All Felonies (N=237)

-86-

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences Imprisonment

Imp. and Probation

Probation

100%

3 7

80%

Other

17 2

35 33

17 4

40%

31 48

60%

100

7 60

60 39

20%

48 33

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=87) (N=8)

(N=41) (N=23)

(N=35)

(N=1)

Queens

Citywide

JO NonPart JO Part

(N=30) (N=12)

(N=193) (N=44)

-87Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences SUPREME COURT SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn % N 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % % N 0

0.0%

Queens % 1

2.4%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.4%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

1 0 0 0

0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

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

64.9%

62.5%

38.9%

54.8%

138

58.5%

35 2 16 4 57

61.4% 3.5% 28.1% 7.0% 100.0%

12 0 10 5 27

44.4% 0.0% 37.0% 18.5% 100.0%

11 0 1 1 13

84.6% 0.0% 7.7% 7.7% 100.0%

7 0 12 0 19

36.8% 0.0% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

65 2 39 10 116

56.0% 1.7% 33.6% 8.6% 100.0%

4 0 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 4 0 13

61.5% 7.7% 30.8% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 1 4

25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0%

14 1 6 1 22

63.6% 4.5% 27.3% 4.5% 100.0%

35.1%

37.5%

61.1%

42.9%

41.1%

17 0 11 2 30

56.7% 0.0% 36.7% 6.7% 100.0%

4 0 7 3 14

28.6% 0.0% 50.0% 21.4% 100.0%

10 0 5 7 22

45.5% 0.0% 22.7% 31.8% 100.0%

3 2 5 1 11

27.3% 18.2% 45.5% 9.1% 100.0%

34 2 28 13 77

44.2% 2.6% 36.4% 16.9% 100.0%

1 1 1 0 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 7 0 10

30.0% 0.0% 70.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 2 2 1 7

28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0%

6 3 10 1 20

30.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 100.0%

100.0%

236

100.0%

52 2 27 6 87

59.8% 2.3% 31.0% 6.9% 100.0%

16 0 17 8 41

39.0% 0.0% 41.5% 19.5% 100.0%

21 0 6 8 35

60.0% 0.0% 17.1% 22.9% 100.0%

10 2 17 1 30

33.3% 6.7% 56.7% 3.3% 100.0%

99 4 67 23 193

51.3% 2.1% 34.7% 11.9% 100.0%

5 1 1 0 7

71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

11 1 11 0 23

47.8% 4.3% 47.8% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 2 4 2 12

33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0%

21 4 16 2 43

48.8% 9.3% 37.2% 4.7% 100.0%

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

-88-

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

100 80

Not Youthful Offender

91%

90%

80%

84%

80%

71%

60 40 20

29% 20% 9%

10%

16%

20%

0 JO Part Non-JO Part A or B Felonies (N=140)

JO Part Non-JO Part C or D Felonies (N=97)

JO Part Non-JO Part All Felonies (N=237)

-89-

Exhibit 6C.2 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Borough: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences Youthful Offender

100%

Not Youthful Offender

7 14

7 22

80%

60%

40%

100

20%

Brooklyn JO Part (N=87)

NonJO Part (N=8)

Bronx JO Part

NonJO Part (N=41) (N=23)

Manhattan JO Part

NonJO Part (N=35) (N=1)

Queens

Citywide

JO Part NonJO Part (N=30) (N=12)

JO Part NonJO Part (N=193) (N=44)

-90-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens % 1

2.4%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.4%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

64.9%

62.5%

38.9%

54.8%

138

58.5%

46 11 57

80.7% 19.3% 100.0%

25 2 27

92.6% 7.4% 100.0%

4 9 13

30.8% 69.2% 100.0%

18 1 19

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

93 23 116

80.2% 19.8% 100.0%

2 2 4

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

10 3 13

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 4

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

16 6 22

72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

35.1%

37.5%

61.1%

42.9%

41.1%

29 1 30

96.7% 3.3% 100.0%

13 1 14

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

18 4 22

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

10 1 11

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

70 7 77

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 2 10

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 0

7 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 2 20

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

100.0%

236

100.0%

75 12 87

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

38 3 41

92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

22 13 35

62.9% 37.1% 100.0%

28 2 30

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

163 30 193

84.5% 15.5% 100.0%

5 2 7

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

18 5 23

78.3% 21.7% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 2 12

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

34 9 43

79.1% 20.9% 100.0%

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

-91-

Exhibit 6D Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Borough: 2013 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%

10%

11%

9% 11%

28%

80% 26% 44%

36%

32%

60% 29%

40%

50%

18%

21%

18%

12% 8%

20% 32%

29%

22%

20% 11%

0% Brooklyn

Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Citywide

(N=61)

(N=28)

(N=22)

(N=18)

(N=129)

-92-

Table 6d Length of Supreme Court Incarcerative Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity and Borough for 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Sentences

Brooklyn N %

A FELONIES:

2 to 6 years or more Subtotal

0.0%

Bronx N 0

BOROUGH Manhattan % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

5.6%

0.8%

1 1

100.0% 100.0%

1 1

100.0% 100.0%

B FELONIES:

68.3%

75.0%

54.5%

44.4%

64.1%

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

2 15 9 4 11 41

4.9% 36.6% 22.0% 9.8% 26.8% 100.0%

1 2 8 4 6 21

4.8% 9.5% 38.1% 19.0% 28.6% 100.0%

1 0 2 2 7 12

8.3% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 58.3% 100.0%

0 0 7 0 1 8

0.0% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

4 17 26 10 25 82

4.9% 20.7% 31.7% 12.2% 30.5% 100.0%

C OR D FELONIES:

31.7%

25.0%

45.5%

50.0%

35.2%

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

4 11 2 1 1 19

21.1% 57.9% 10.5% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0%

1 1 1 2 2 7

14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 100.0%

0 2 6 2 0 10

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

5 1 2 1 0 9

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

10 15 11 6 3 45

22.2% 33.3% 24.4% 13.3% 6.7% 100.0%

ALL CHARGES:

100.0%

128

100.0%

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

6 26 11 5 12 60

10.0% 43.3% 18.3% 8.3% 20.0% 100.0%

2 3 9 6 8 28

7.1% 10.7% 32.1% 21.4% 28.6% 100.0%

1 2 8 4 7 22

4.5% 9.1% 36.4% 18.2% 31.8% 100.0%

5 1 9 1 2 18

27.8% 5.6% 50.0% 5.6% 11.1% 100.0%

14 32 37 16 29 128

10.9% 25.0% 28.9% 12.5% 22.7% 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: 2013 JO Supreme Court Dispositions ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

Remand

Total

25 20 16

15.5

12 12

13 11

12.5

11 11

5 0 A or B Felonies

C or D Felonies

All Charges

(N=139)

(N=97)

(N=236)

Exhibit 6F Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide: 2013 JO Supreme Court Sentences ROR

Bail Set and Made

Bail Set and Not Made

600

Remand

553 543

500 400

Total

405 342

399

392

366 334 350 270

300

442 385

368

363 307

200 100 0 A or B Felonies (N=139)

C or D Felonies (N=97)

All Charges (N=236)

-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 2013 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

11.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

11.0

0 0 0 1

11.0

8.0

16.0

21.0

11.0

137

12.0

25 7 4 25

8.0 11.0 11.5 8.0

16 5 8 11

16.0 15.0 16.0 16.0

3 1 1 8

31.0 29.0 16.0 19.5

14 4 0 5

8.5 12.0 20.0

58 17 13 49

10.0 12.0 16.0 12.0

10.0

13.0

24.5

8.5

11.0

21 2 1 9

10.0 11.5 10.0 8.0

13 4 1 6

11.0 15.0 161.0 15.5

14 0 0 8

31.0 16.5

9 3 1 5

9.0 30.0 23.0 6.0

57 9 3 28

11.0 13.0 16.0 10.0

9.0

15.0

24.0

10.0

235

11.0

46 9 5 34

8.5 11.0 10.0 8.0

29 9 9 17

12.0 15.0 16.0 16.0

17 1 1 16

31.0 29.0 16.0 18.5

23 7 1 11

9.0 13.0 23.0 10.0

115 26 16 78

11.0 12.5 16.0 11.0

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes one case 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 2013 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

405.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

405.0

0 0 0 1

405.0

262.0

602.0

588.0

307.0

137

350.0

25 7 4 25

231.0 350.0 336.0 175.0

16 5 8 11

666.5 616.0 525.0 588.0

3 1 1 8

666.0 790.0 336.0 543.0

14 4 0 5

323.0 332.5 307.0

58 17 13 49

342.0 405.0 368.0 325.0

231.0

574.0

647.5

193.5

392.0

21 2 1 9

231.0 423.0 231.0 196.0

13 4 1 6

605.0 711.0 543.0 618.5

14 0 0 8

640.0 406.0

9 3 1 5

182.0 671.0 660.0 156.0

57 9 3 28

399.0 553.0 543.0 270.0

251.0

596.0

644.0

262.5

235

364.0

46 9 5 34

231.0 350.0 322.0 185.5

29 9 9 17

658.0 616.0 543.0 588.0

17 1 1 16

840.0 790.0 336.0 497.0

23 7 1 11

241.0 405.0 660.0 205.0

115 26 16 78

385.0 442.5 411.5 307.0

-96-

-97-

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES The failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for 2007 through 2013 are not comparable to those in earlier 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 268 released juveniles in 2013. This includes 226 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 42 who were released on bail. Six released juveniles (2%) failed to appear as scheduled for at least one appearance in Criminal Court in 2013.17 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 (2%) as for those released on bail (2%). Table 7 presents pretrial FTA by release status in each borough for juveniles scheduled to appear at least once in Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court during the reporting period. Three of the juveniles released on recognizance who failed to appear in Criminal Court during the reporting period had secured release in the Bronx (5% FTA rate), one had been released in the Queens (2%), and one had been released in Brooklyn (1% FTA rate). No juveniles who were released on recognizance failed to appear in Criminal Court in Manhattan. In 2013, pretrial appearances were scheduled in Supreme Court for a total of 251 released juveniles. This includes 181 juveniles who were released on recognizance and 70 who were released on bail. Nearly eleven 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 slightly lower for juveniles released on recognizance (10.5%) than for those released on bail (11.4%). However, the volume of juveniles released on recognizance for whom at least one appearance was scheduled in 2013 was far greater than the volume of juveniles released on bail (70). Although more released juveniles missed a scheduled Supreme Court pretrial appearance in Brooklyn (11) than in any other borough, more released juveniles were scheduled to appear in Brooklyn (80). Consequently the FTA rate in Brooklyn (12.1%) was comparable to the FTA rate among released juveniles in Manhattan (12.5%) and Queens (12%). The FTA rate was lowest in the Bronx where only eight percent of the 95 released juveniles scheduled to appear in the Bronx Supreme Court failed to appear. It is 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 2013 Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear in Court ROR

Bail Set and Made

All Releases

15%

10%

11%

0% Criminal Court (N=226)

(N=42)

(N=268)

Supreme Court (N=181)

(N=70)

(N=251)

-100-

Table 7 Failure to Appear by Release Status and Borough for Released Juveniles Scheduled to Appear at Least Once in 2013 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

92.5%

88.9%

70.0%

68.6%

226

84.3%

1 97

1.0% 99.0% 100.0%

3 69

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

0 21

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 34

2.9% 97.1% 100.0%

5 221

2.2% 97.8% 100.0%

7.5%

11.1%

30.0%

31.4%

15.7%

0 8

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 8

11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

0 9

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 16

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 41

2.4% 97.6% 100.0%

106

100.0%

268

100.0%

1 105

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

4 77

4.9% 95.1% 100.0%

0 30

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 50

2.0% 98.0% 100.0%

6 262

2.2% 97.8% 100.0%

71.4%

77.9%

62.5%

68.0%

181

72.1%

7 58

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

7 67

9.5% 90.5% 100.0%

3 22

12.0% 88.0% 100.0%

2 15

11.8% 88.2% 100.0%

19 162

10.5% 89.5% 100.0%

28.6%

22.1%

37.5%

32.0%

27.9%

4 22

15.4% 84.6% 100.0%

1 20

4.8% 95.2% 100.0%

2 13

13.3% 86.7% 100.0%

1 7

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

8 62

11.4% 88.6% 100.0%

100.0%

251

100.0%

11 80

12.1% 87.9% 100.0%

8 87

8.4% 91.6% 100.0%

5 35

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

3 22

12.0% 88.0% 100.0%

27 224

10.8% 89.2% 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 Criminal sexual act* in the first 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) 130.50 (1) (2) 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)

B A B B B C B A B C B A A B B B C

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

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

Changed from â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sodomyâ&#x20AC;? in November 2003 as part of the NYS Sexual Assault Reform Act.

** 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.