Juveniles Report 98 by Administrator

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 1998

May 2000  2000 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

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 by Borough...................................................................... Exhibit 1C: Gender by Borough.......................................................................................... Table 1c: Gender by Arrest Charge by Borough................................................................. Exhibit 1D: Non-Docketed Arrests by Borough ................................................................. Table 1d: Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge by Borough ........................................

7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

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 Outcome by Borough ................................................................. Table 2b: Arraignment Outcome by Affidavit Charge by Borough ................................... Exhibit 2C: Arraignment Release Status by Borough......................................................... Table 2c: Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge by Borough .......................... Exhibit 2D: Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide ........................................... Table 2d: Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough ..........................................

18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

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 on Charge Severity Citywide... Table 3b: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough ....................... Exhibit 3C: Mean Number of Criminal Court Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide....

30 32 33 34 35 36 37

Table 3c: Mean Number of Criminal Court Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge at Disposition by Borough .......................... 38 Exhibit 3D: Mean Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Release Status and Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide ............ 39 Table 3d: Mean Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Release Status and Charge at Disposition by Borough.................................... 40 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 at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ......... Exhibit 4C: Release Status at the First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ............ Table 4c: Release Status by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough .... Exhibit 4D: Mean Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity Citywide.............. Table 4d: Mean Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough..................................................................................................

41 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

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 by Borough...................... Exhibit 5C: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough ................. Table 5c: Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge 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 at Disposition by Borough........................................................................................................................... Exhibit 5E: Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide .......................................................................................................................... Table 5e: Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge at First Appearance by Borough... Exhibit 5F: Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide......................................................................................................

53 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65

67 68

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

70 71 72 73 74 75 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87

90 91 92 93 94 95 96

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES....................................................... Exhibit 7A: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court for Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide........................................................ Table 7a: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court by Criminal Court Arraignment Release Status and Borough ...................................................................... Exhibit 7B: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court for Defendants Released at the First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide........................................... Table 7b: Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court by Release Status at the First Supreme Court Appearance and Borough ..............................................................

97 98 99 100 101

APPENDIX A: JUVENILE OFFENSES ...................................................................... 102

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADULT COURT CASE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER, 1998 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report. Serious crime committed by young offenders has attracted considerable attention and has engendered public concern regarding the criminal justice system’s response to these young offenders. Foreshadowing recent national concern, New York State passed the Juvenile Offender (JO) Law as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978. 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 "waiverup" system usually found, jurisdiction for juveniles arrested for serious offenses begins in the juvenile court, and the case may then be transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate. During recent years, the number of youths in detention, by the authority of the adult or juvenile courts, has been increasing. This strains the resources of both juvenile justice professionals responsible for handling these offenders in New York City and of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) which is in charge of juvenile pretrial detention. Concern regarding detention capacity heightened because of the City’s decision to replace Spofford, a large but outmoded juvenile detention facility, with two new detention facilities with a combined capacity less than Spofford's. (Overcrowding in the new facilities led to the City’s decision to renovate and reopen Spofford.) 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 A Semi-Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City. The report was initially designed to describe activity during a specific six-month period in a fiscal year, but was later expanded to cover a full year of activity. The current report covers January through December 1998 (the second half of fiscal year 1998 and the first half of fiscal year 1999). The report describes selected characteristics of those arrested and also provides information on court activity on serious cases with juvenile defendants in the Criminal (lower) and Supreme (upper) Court during the reporting period. The report provides a picture of the numbers and types of arrests of juveniles for serious crimes which entered the adult criminal justice system, and describes disposition and releasestatus decisions in such cases. This information can provide policy-makers with an understanding of the types of offenses attributed to juveniles and of the routine system responses. This can aid in the development of potential intervention strategies, either for limiting pretrial detention or for alternative sanctioning. This 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;

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

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, will 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 arrests, both those for which defendants were held for arraignment (summary) and those for which a Desk Appearance Ticket was issued. Because juveniles arrested for JO offenses are within the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system, data regarding their arrests and court cases are contained in the CJA database; however, once their case is terminated in the adult system, information regarding subsequent actions in juvenile court (Family Court) is not available to CJA. The CJA database is the source for this Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City. Processing of Juvenile Offenders. In New York City, if a juvenile is arrested for any one of seventeen2 serious offenses (a complete list of JO charges is contained in Appendix A) and is thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of the offense (thirteen only if charged with homicide), the case is sent for review to the District Attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 1

CJA does not ordinarily interview defendants who are arrested solely on bench warrants, or charged with noncriminal offenses within the Administrative Code or the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendants arraigned in the hospital without going through a police central booking facility are not interviewed. In Manhattan, CJA does not interview defendants arrested solely on charges of prostitution except for those processed through the Midtown Community Court. 2

Seventeen serious offenses included two charges added to the list as of November 1, 1998: 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree and 265.03, possession of a weapon with second degree, where the weapon is possessed on school grounds. 3

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

-3Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

pending in Criminal or Supreme Court. At the pre-filing stage, only referrals can occur, while 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, 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 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 in Supreme Court. For those B- or C- felony JO charges where the prosecuting DA agrees, the defendant may consent to waive indictment and be prosecuted by a superior court information (SCI). The functional equivalent of an indictment, this instrument is usually used to expedite felony pleas. Unless the case is referred or removed in Supreme Court post-indictment, both disposition and sentencing usually occur there. An offender convicted of an eligible JO offense may be adjudicated as a Youthful Offender (YO), and receive a sentence authorized for an E-felony conviction. If not adjudicated a YO, an offender convicted of a JO offense must be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05, which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required. In response to concern regarding JOs, the city has developed specialized courtrooms in Supreme Court in each borough except Staten Island called Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts) for the handling and disposition of some JO cases. JO cases may be assigned to these parts after indictment, either for Supreme Court arraignment or subsequent to arraignment. Exceptions to the processing in JO parts may include high publicity cases or those with adult codefendants. The court specialization allows for those involved to develop an expertise in the processing of JO cases. Design of the Report. This report provides descriptive information, such as charge type, borough of arrest, or gender, for processing activity which occurred during the reporting period at different decision points in the adult court process. It begins with arrests, and then provides information about the initial and disposition hearing, for both courts; for Supreme Court, sentence information is also included. The report covers the 1998 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998. 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 rates.

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

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 whatever detailed numbers and percentages relate to a specific exhibit. For example, in the Criminal Court arraignment section, Exhibit 2B presents arraignment outcome by borough, while Table 2b provides arraignment outcome for various affidavit charges, by borough. Methodological Notes. As noted earlier, CJA’s database is limited to the adult court. The subsequent outcome of any case referred or removed to Family Court from adult court is not known.4 Because of the extremely low number of juvenile offenders arrested and processed in Staten Island (there were 71 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. Further, the number of cases with female defendants is also too low to be meaningful past the Criminal Court arraignment decision point. That is, although the number of cases for which females were arrested during the reporting period was 329, only 126 cases with female defendants were arraigned in Criminal Court. 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 available only for those whose cases are not finally disposed at a specific point. For example, in the Criminal Court disposition section, we present defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the disposition hearing; the defendants whose cases were terminated in Criminal Court through a dismissal typically have no release status and are not included in the information.5 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

However, for those cases transferred either to Family Court or elsewhere, there will be a release status, because the case is still open.

-5Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

OVERVIEW OF CASE VOLUME AT EACH DECISION POINT Exhibit A shows the numbers of cases with activity at each decision point which resulted in cases either leaving or being retained in the system.6 For those cases which remain in the adult court system, the Exhibit shows whether the defendants were released (either on their own recognizance or through bail making) or detained on bail or remand. Please keep in mind that the numbers do not reflect a group of arrestees being tracked forward, but rather are those cases which had a specific action occurring during the reporting period. It is also important to note that the unit of analysis varies at different stages of processing. Although we refer to “cases” arraigned or disposed, the data are actually tallied by docket in Criminal Court and by indictment in Supreme Court. A single juvenile arrest may be associated with more than one docket and, if prosecuted in the Supreme Court, may be associated with more than one indictment. However, most arrests are represented by one docket and, if transferred to the upper court, most have only one indictment number. If an indictment charges more than one juvenile, the outcomes for each juvenile are tallied separately. As can be seen from Exhibit A, there were 2394 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998. Almost four of every ten of these arrests were filed in adult court —1481 cases (62%) were declined prosecution or transferred to Family Court before arraignment. Among those cases (dockets) disposed in Criminal Court during the reporting period, more than half were not transferred to Supreme Court. Among those cases disposed in Supreme Court during the reporting period, a conviction was the most likely outcome (87%). Finally, the proportion of cases in which defendants were released was greater at all decision points after Criminal Court arraignment. For the subsequent case processing points, this appears to be a function not only of an increase in the number of defendants making bail, but a decrease in the overall numbers of cases processed at each point.

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 other courts. Thus, the ones which are counted as retained are those which either remained pending in either court, went to trial, or pled guilty in Supreme Court.

-6Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Arrests

2394

1481(61.9%)

913 (38.1%) Not Applicable Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

923

6 (1%)

917 (99%)

389 (42%)

CC Dispositions

815

461 (57%)

354 (43%)

data not available

SC 1st Appearances

336

10 (3%)

326 (97%)

148 (47%)

SC Dispositions

247

33 (13%)

214 (87%)

133 (64%)

528 (58%) data not available

164 (53%)

74 (36%)

Because of missing release status data and eight juveniles for whom bench warrants were ordered, the base for the release decision at the first Supreme Court hearing is 312 cases, not 326. 8

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 207 because release status data is missing for some juveniles and the release decision is not limited to defendants who are convicted and awaiting sentencing. It also pertains to defendants whose cases are transferred to Family Court.

-7Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 2394 arrests for JO offenses in 1998. This is a large increase when compared to the 1290 arrests in 1997 but a smaller increase when compared to the 1808 arrests in 1996. However, the increase was concentrated among cases that were not prosecuted in the adult court. It reflects an increase in CJA’s ability to distinguish arrests of juveniles who are eligible for prosecution as juvenile offenders in the adult court from arrests of juveniles who face charges in the Family Court, based on information provided by the Police Department. It does not appear to reflect any substantial change in the actual volume of juveniles charged with one of the JO offenses. Specifically, the juveniles whom the NYPD processed as juvenile delinquents and who were brought to the Family Court rather than to the adult court are included among the juvenile offenders in this report if the charge is one of those enumerated as a juvenile offender felony and the juvenile is aged 14 or l5. Many had been erroneously excluded from the juvenile offender arrests in the previous reporting period because although it was clear that the arrestee was to be processed as a juvenile delinquent, the date of birth was not available to distinguish which juveniles were eligible for prosecution as adults. As can be seen in Exhibit 1A.1, first degree robbery was the most serious charge for more than a quarter of the juvenile arrests. First and second degree robbery together account for more than three quarters of the juvenile arrests. First degree robbery was the most frequent arrest charge for each previous report except for the 1996 report. The charge distribution for 1996, like the current report, showed more juveniles arrested for a second degree, rather than a first degree, robbery charge. Again, however, this reflects the increased proportion of Family Court cases in the arrest population reported during these periods. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 1998, barely one percent (21) of the arrests were for such a severe charge (e.g., second degree murder, first degree kidnapping, or first degree arson). It is also important here to note that, as of November 1998, juveniles aged 14 and 15 can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (subsection 4) or third degree, if it occurred on school grounds, and they can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. However, only five juveniles showed a most serious arrest charge of 265.03 in November or December of 1998, and no juveniles were charged with 265.02.9 As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, arrest offense type varied somewhat across the boroughs. While second degree robbery was the most frequent, the proportion it represented of all JO arrests was lowest in the Bronx (37%) and ranged from 51 percent to 54 percent in the other boroughs. As in previous reports, the proportion of murder cases remained under two percent citywide, ranging from only one juvenile in Staten Island and two in Manhattan to three and four juveniles, respectively, in Brooklyn and Queens, to a high of seven juveniles in the Bronx (1.3%). Detailed distributions of all JO charges for each borough are presented in Table 1a. 9

For review purposes, and because many specific penal law charges frequently contain very few cases, general felony-class groups were created ("other A" and "other B"). These general groups are used throughout the report. The "other A" group is composed of first degree kidnapping and first degree arson. All B-felony JO charges except first degree robbery and attempted second degree murder comprise the "other B" group. The full frequency distribution for each individual charge can be found in the “Tables” following the specific “Exhibits.”

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

Exhibit 1B shows that nearly six of every ten arrested in JO cases are fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This also varied little by borough, ranging between 56 and 63 percent across the boroughs. There were two JO cases involving thirteen-year-olds in this reporting period. Table 1b presents the distribution of age, for the different JO arrest charges, for each borough. Citywide, regardless of charge, fifteen-year-olds account for more JO arrests than do younger arrestees. The fifteen-year-olds are more heavily concentrated in the A (65%) or B (63%) felony arrest charge levels than at the C Felony level (57%). Not surprisingly, most arrestees for JO offenses were male (86%, comparable to the 86% to 88% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Queens had the highest proportion of arrestees who were male (91%), compared to 84% to 87% in the other boroughs. As shown is Table 1c, the female arrestees tended to concentrate in the less severe felony-offense categories. Citywide, two of the juveniles with A-felony arrest charges were female (10%), compared to twelve percent of those with B-felony arrest charges, and 15 percent of the C-felony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, more than six of every ten 1998 JO arrests were not docketed.10 The proportion prosecuted in 1998 is similar to the proportion reported for 1996 when prosecutors filed a case in adult court for half of the JO arrests. As noted above with regard to the overall arrest volume, the proportion of JO arrests that were not prosecuted in the adult court in 1998 can not be compared to the figure reported in CJAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual report for 1997 because of the high volume of arrests for juvenile delinquency where the date of birth was not included in the On-Line Booking System (OLBS) data CJA received from the NYPD in that year. Since data for 1998 seem to be far more complete, the arrest volume data are more accurate and reliable for the current report period than for previous reports. The volume of JO arrestees who faced adultcourt prosecution has fluctuated from year to year but the data used to identify arraigned juvenile offenders has been complete since the beginning of the report series.

The arrests that are not docketed include those voided by the police or declined prosecution (DP) as well as prosecutorial transfers to Family Court.

-9-

Exhibit 1A.1 Arrest Charge Citywide: 1998 JO Arrests

Murder 2 0.7% Robbery 1 28.1%

Other* 16.5%

Assault 1 5.6%

Att. Murder 2 1.1%

Robbery 2 47.9%

(N=2,394)

* Includes other A, B and C felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=800)

Percentage

0.8 0.4

29.1

51.0

5.0

13.8

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=439)

1.1 0.5

30.3

50.8

7.5

9.8

0.5 0.7

22.7

50.6

3.1

22.3

Assault 1

Queens (N=551)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, and C felonies

Bronx (N=533)

2.3 1.3

30.8

37.1

7.3

21.2

Att. Murder 2

1998 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Staten Is. (N=71)

Other*

1.4 1.4

25.4

53.5

8.5

9.9

-10-

800

408 71 1

480

6 233 40 0 18 11 1 8 0 0

317

3 0 0

100.0%

85.0% 14.8% 0.2% 100.0%

60.0%

1.9% 73.5% 12.6% 0.0% 5.7% 3.5% 0.3% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.4%

Brooklyn N %

533

198 62 3

263

12 164 39 0 24 17 1 4 2 0

263

7 0 0

100.0%

75.3% 23.6% 1.1% 100.0%

49.3%

4.6% 62.4% 14.8% 0.0% 9.1% 6.5% 0.4% 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

49.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.3%

Bronx N %

439

223 26 1

250

5 133 33 0 6 5 0 1 2 0

185

2 2 0

100.0%

89.2% 10.4% 0.4% 100.0%

56.9%

2.7% 71.9% 17.8% 0.0% 3.2% 2.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0%

42.1%

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

4 0 2

551

279 111 0

390

3 125 17 1 1 1 0 5 2 0

100.0%

71.5% 28.5% 0.0% 100.0%

70.8%

1.9% 80.6% 11.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 3.2% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

28.1%

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

1.1%

Queens %

155

38 7 0

1 18 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

27 673 135 1 49 34 2 18 6 0

945

17 2 2

100.0% 2394

84.4% 1146 15.6% 277 0.0% 5 100.0%

100.0%

80.3% 19.4% 0.4% 100.0%

59.6%

2.9% 71.2% 14.3% 0.1% 5.2% 3.6% 0.2% 1.9% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

39.5%

81.0% 9.5% 9.5% 100.0%

0.9%

CITYWIDE N %

63.4% 1428

4.0% 72.0% 24.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

35.2%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.4%

Staten Island N %

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.

TOTAL

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

TOTAL C 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) Subtotal

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arrest Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=800)

Percentage

38.6

61.4

Bronx (N=533)

0.2

43.5

56.3

Manhattan (N=439)

0.2

36.9

62.9

Queens (N=550)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

1998 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

41.8

58.2

Staten Is. (N=71)

43.7

56.3

Citywide (N=2393)

0.1

40.3

59.6

-12-

-13Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge by Borough For 1998 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) 13 14 15 Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES 13 14 15 Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) 13 14 15 Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) 13 14 15 Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES 13 14 15 Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) 13 14 15 Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES 13 14 15 Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

0.4%

1.3%

0.9%

1.4%

0.8%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 2 4

14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 100.0%

1 1 2

25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 2 3

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 5 13

10.0% 25.0% 65.0% 100.0%

0.4%

1.3%

0.9%

0.5%

1.4%

0.8%

0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 2 4

14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 100.0%

1 1 2

25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 1 2

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 4 12

11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 100.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.1%

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

317

39.6%

263

49.3%

185

42.1%

155

28.2%

35.2%

945

39.5%

0 125 192

0.0% 39.4% 60.6% 100.0%

0 98 165

0.0% 37.3% 62.7% 100.0%

0 59 126

0.0% 31.9% 68.1% 100.0%

0 59 96

0.0% 38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

0 8 17

0.0% 32.0% 68.0% 100.0%

0 349 596

0.0% 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

0.8%

2.3%

1.1%

0.5%

1.4%

1.1%

0 3 3

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 2 10

0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

0 1 4

0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0 1 2

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 7 20

0.0% 25.9% 74.1% 100.0%

233

29.1%

164

30.8%

133

30.3%

125

22.7%

25.4%

673

28.1%

0 86 147

0.0% 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

0 59 105

0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 100.0%

0 42 91

0.0% 31.6% 68.4% 100.0%

0 51 74

0.0% 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%

0 7 11

0.0% 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

0 245 428

0.0% 36.4% 63.6% 100.0%

9.8%

16.3%

10.7%

4.9%

8.5%

245

10.2%

0 36 42

0.0% 46.2% 53.8% 100.0%

0 37 50

0.0% 42.5% 57.5% 100.0%

0 16 31

0.0% 34.0% 66.0% 100.0%

0 7 20

0.0% 25.9% 74.1% 100.0%

0 1 5

0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

0 97 148

0.0% 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%

480

60.0%

263

49.3%

250

56.9%

390

70.9%

63.4%

1428

59.7%

0 184 296

0.0% 38.3% 61.7% 100.0%

0 132 131

0.0% 50.2% 49.8% 100.0%

0 102 148

0.0% 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%

0 169 221

0.0% 43.3% 56.7% 100.0%

0 23 22

0.0% 51.1% 48.9% 100.0%

0 610 818

0.0% 42.7% 57.3% 100.0%

408

51.0%

198

37.1%

223

50.8%

279

50.7%

53.5%

1146

47.9%

0 152 256

0.0% 37.3% 62.7% 100.0%

0 98 100

0.0% 49.5% 50.5% 100.0%

0 91 132

0.0% 40.8% 59.2% 100.0%

0 112 167

0.0% 40.1% 59.9% 100.0%

0 19 19

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 472 674

0.0% 41.2% 58.8% 100.0%

9.0%

12.2%

6.2%

111

20.2%

9.9%

282

11.8%

0 32 40

0.0% 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

0 34 31

0.0% 52.3% 47.7% 100.0%

0 11 16

0.0% 40.7% 59.3% 100.0%

0 57 54

0.0% 51.4% 48.6% 100.0%

0 4 3

0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

0 138 144

0.0% 48.9% 51.1% 100.0%

800

100.0%

533

100.0%

439

100.0%

550

100.0%

2393

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=800)

Percentage

85.5

14.5

Bronx (N=533)

84.8

15.2

Manhattan (N=438)

83.8

16.2

Queens (N=550)

Gender Males Females

1998 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

90.5

9.5

Staten Is. (N=71)

87.3

12.7

Citywide (N=2392)

86.2

13.8

-14-

-15Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) Males Females Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES Males Females Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Males Females Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Males Females Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Males Females Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Males Females Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Males Females Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

0.4%

1.3%

0.9%

1.1%

1.4%

0.9%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

6 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19 2

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

0.4%

1.3%

0.5%

0.7%

1.4%

0.7%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.4%

0.0%

0.2%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

317

39.6%

263

49.3%

185

42.2%

155

28.2%

35.2%

945

39.5%

278 39

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

226 37

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

164 21

88.6% 11.4% 100.0%

141 14

91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

22 3

88.0% 12.0% 100.0%

831 114

87.9% 12.1% 100.0%

0.8%

2.3%

1.1%

0.5%

1.4%

1.1%

6 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 2

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

4 1

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

24 3

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

233

29.1%

164

30.8%

133

30.4%

125

22.7%

25.4%

673

28.1%

206 27

88.4% 11.6% 100.0%

141 23

86.0% 14.0% 100.0%

124 9

93.2% 6.8% 100.0%

112 13

89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

16 2

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

599 74

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

9.8%

16.3%

10.7%

4.9%

8.5%

245

10.2%

66 12

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

75 12

86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

36 11

76.6% 23.4% 100.0%

26 1

96.3% 3.7% 100.0%

5 1

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

208 37

84.9% 15.1% 100.0%

480

60.0%

263

49.3%

249

56.8%

389

70.7%

63.4% 1426

59.6%

403 77

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

219 44

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

201 48

80.7% 19.3% 100.0%

351 38

90.2% 9.8% 100.0%

39 6

86.7% 1213 13.3% 213 100.0%

85.1% 14.9% 100.0%

408

51.0%

198

37.1%

222

50.7%

278

50.5%

53.5% 1144

47.8%

336 72

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

170 28

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

179 43

80.6% 19.4% 100.0%

253 25

91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

33 5

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

971 173

84.9% 15.1% 100.0%

9.0%

12.2%

6.2%

111

20.2%

9.9%

282

11.8%

67 5

93.1% 6.9% 100.0%

49 16

75.4% 24.6% 100.0%

22 5

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

98 13

88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

6 1

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

242 40

85.8% 14.2% 100.0%

800

100.0%

533

100.0%

438

100.0%

550

100.0%

100.0% 2392

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 2 juveniles for whom gender was not available.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=800)

Percentage

59.3

40.8

Bronx (N=533)

55.5

44.5

Manhattan (N=439)

53.8

46.2

Queens (N=551)

78.0

22.0

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

1998 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=71)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

63.4

36.6

Citywide (N=2394)

61.9

38.1

-16-

-17Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

CITYWIDE N %

0.4%

1.3%

0.9%

1.1%

1.4%

0.9%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 5

28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

2 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3 3

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 13

38.1% 61.9% 100.0%

0.4%

1.3%

0.5%

0.7%

1.4%

0.7%

0 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 5

28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 12

29.4% 70.6% 100.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.4%

0.0%

0.2%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

3 1

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0

317

39.6%

263

49.3%

185

42.1%

155

28.1%

35.2%

945

39.5%

82 235

25.9% 74.1% 100.0%

70 193

26.6% 73.4% 100.0%

43 142

23.2% 76.8% 100.0%

57 98

36.8% 63.2% 100.0%

5 20

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

257 688

27.2% 72.8% 100.0%

0.8%

2.3%

1.1%

0.5%

1.4%

1.1%

3 3

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3 9

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

1 4

20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8 19

29.6% 70.4% 100.0%

233

29.1%

164

30.8%

133

30.3%

125

22.7%

25.4%

673

28.1%

49 184

21.0% 79.0% 100.0%

47 117

28.7% 71.3% 100.0%

25 108

18.8% 81.2% 100.0%

38 87

30.4% 69.6% 100.0%

4 14

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

163 510

24.2% 75.8% 100.0%

9.8%

16.3%

10.7%

4.9%

8.5%

245

10.2%

30 48

38.5% 61.5% 100.0%

20 67

23.0% 77.0% 100.0%

17 30

36.2% 63.8% 100.0%

18 9

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 5

16.7% 83.3% 100.0%

86 159

35.1% 64.9% 100.0%

480

60.0%

263

49.3%

250

56.9%

390

70.8%

63.4% 1428

59.6%

392 88

81.7% 18.3% 100.0%

224 39

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

191 59

76.4% 23.6% 100.0%

370 20

94.9% 5.1% 100.0%

39 6

86.7% 1216 13.3% 212 100.0%

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

408

51.0%

198

37.1%

223

50.8%

279

50.6%

53.5% 1146

47.9%

323 85

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

165 33

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

165 58

74.0% 26.0% 100.0%

260 19

93.2% 6.8% 100.0%

32 6

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

945 201

82.5% 17.5% 100.0%

9.0%

12.2%

6.2%

111

20.1%

9.9%

282

11.8%

69 3

95.8% 4.2% 100.0%

59 6

90.8% 9.2% 100.0%

26 1

96.3% 3.7% 100.0%

110 1

99.1% 0.9% 100.0%

7 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

271 11

96.1% 3.9% 100.0%

800

100.0%

533

100.0%

439

100.0%

551

100.0%

100.0% 2394

100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 92311 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, a little more than the 881 arraigned in 1997 and the 896 arraigned in 1996, but substantially fewer than the 1231 arraigned in 1995. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that a majority of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (53%), and another quarter for second degree robbery (27%). Thus, eight of every ten JO dockets in adult court had robbery affidavit charges. These proportions are virtually the same as were reported for 1996 and 1997 arraignments. In addition, the combined proportion of robbery charges is roughly the same proportion of the JO arrest population that showed robbery arrest charges, but first degree robbery charges were more prevalent among the arraignment affidavit charges and second degree robbery charges were more common among the arrest charges. Murder and attempted murder charges account for a slightly larger portion of cases among arraignments of juveniles than among the full JO arrest population: almost four percent of all arraignments were for these most severe charges, as compared to barely two percent of those arrested during the reporting period. The differences between the reported percentage distribution of charges at arrest and at arraignment primarily reflect the different rates of non-prosecution for juveniles with different arrest charges. As shown in the previous section in Table 1d, juvenile arrests with more severe arrest charges were more likely to be prosecuted in the adult court than were those with charges of lesser severity. For example, barely a quarter of cases for juveniles with robbery 1 arrest charges were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to 80 percent of the cases for juveniles with robbery 2 arrest charges. Far fewer juveniles were arraigned in Criminal Court than were arrested, so those with robbery 1 arraignment charges constitute a larger proportion of the arraignment population than of the arrest population. Charges at arraignment vary somewhat by borough, as indicated in Exhibit 2A.2. Here, the proportion of arraignments for first degree robbery ranged widely, from a high of 74 percent for Queens, to a low of 44 percent for the Bronx. When first and second degree robbery are considered together, however, the borough differences are far more narrow because the borough with the highest proportion of juveniles arraigned on first degree robbery showed the lowest proportion of juveniles charged with second degree robbery at arraignment. Together, robbery 1 and robbery 2 account for 85 to 88 percent of the JO arraignments in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, but still only 66 percent of the Bronx arraignments. The Bronx shows a particularly high proportion (12%) of arraigned dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges, compared to less than five percent in the other boroughs. The Bronx also shows a particularly high proportion of arraigned dockets with assault charges (also 12%), compared to less than eight percent in the other boroughs. The proportion with arraignment charges of second degree murder or attempted murder in the second degree was close to seven percent in the Bronx, five percent 11

The volume of cases arraigned here varies slightly from the volume of docketed arrests reported in the previous section because arrests known to be docketed may not have been arraigned in the reporting period. In addition, this section reports on dockets that are arraigned, and an arrest may be associated with more than one docket.

-19Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

in Queens, three percent in Brooklyn and less than two percent in Manhattan. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.12 Exhibit 2B indicates that there are very few dismissals (3) or transfers to Family Court (3) at Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 2C indicates that four of every ten juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide. The rate of ROR was lower in 1997 (34%) and 1996 (35%), but is similar to the rate in 1995 (41%). Borough differences were substantial with the lowest ROR rates found in Queens (32%) and Brooklyn (38%), and the highest rates found in Manhattan (41%) and the Bronx (46%). The Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx rates followed the citywide pattern, rising six to eight percentage points from 1997. The proportion of juveniles released on ROR at arraignment in 1998 in Manhattan was virtually the same as it had been in 1997. Typically, if defendants are not released on ROR, they do not secure pretrial release at Criminal Court arraignment. The proportion released on bail was less than three percent citywide, ranging from barely one percent in Brooklyn to almost nine percent in Queens. Release rates vary when specific charges are examined, as can be seen in Table 2c, and defendants who were arraigned in cases with more serious charges were more likely to be detained. Citywide, most of those arraigned on A-felony charges were remanded with no bail set (69%); this is in contrast to less than two percent of those arraigned on B felonies and none facing a C-felony charge. Further, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies was 36 percent, as compared to 50 percent in arraignments for C felonies. Borough differences in the release conditions set at arraignment are large and are apparent even within charge category. In arraignments for first degree robbery in 1998, the largest group of cases, 39 percent of defendants citywide were released on ROR, up from the 32 and 30 percent release rates reported for 1997 and 1996, respectively. Queens and Brooklyn had the lowest proportion released (35% and 36%, respectively), compared to 38 percent in Manhattan and 47 percent in the Bronx. The citywide increase in the proportion of juveniles released on ROR when arraigned on first degree robbery charges is reflected in each borough. 12

As noted in the introduction, from arraignment forward, “all boroughs” and “citywide” reporting excludes the few Staten Island cases prosecuted during the reporting period.

-20Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

Exhibit 2D shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are differences: more than half of the females were released on ROR (58%, similar to the 56% and 58% rate in 1997 and 1996 but lower than the 64% reported for 1995), as compared to 36 percent of the males, higher than the 1997 (31%) and 1996 (32%) rate and lower than the 1995 rate of 38%. The gender difference probably, in part, reflects the over representation of females at the C-, rather than the A- or B- felony arraignment charge severity level.

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 1998 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 53.2%

Att. Murder 2 2.6%

Murder 2 1.2% Other* 8.4% Robbery 2 27.4%

Assault 1 7.2%

(N=923)

* Includes other A, B and C felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=345)

Percentage

1.7 0.9

53.6

31.3

4.9

7.5

Murder 2

5.0 1.7

44.2

22.1

11.7

15.4

Manhattan (N=210)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, and C felonies

Bronx (N=240)

Att. Murder 2

1998 JO Arraignments

1.0 0.5

50.0

35.2

7.1

6.2

Assault 1

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=128)

Other*

3.1 2.3

74.2

14.1

1.6 4.7

-22-

345

108 1

109

6 185 17 0 13 3 0 9 0 0

233

3 0 0

100.0%

99.1% 0.9% 100.0%

31.6%

2.6% 79.4% 7.3% 0.0% 5.6% 1.3% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

Brooklyn N %

4 1 0

240

53 1

12 106 28 0 18 12 1 3 1 0

181

N 2.1%

100.0%

98.1% 1.9% 100.0%

22.5%

6.6% 58.6% 15.5% 0.0% 9.9% 6.6% 0.6% 1.7% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

75.4%

210

74 3

2 105 15 0 5 2 0 0 2 0

131

1 1 0

100.0%

96.1% 3.9% 100.0%

36.7%

1.5% 80.2% 11.5% 0.0% 3.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

62.4%

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Bronx

3 0 0

128

18 0

4 95 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14.1%

3.7% 88.8% 5.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

83.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.3%

Queens %

107

11 2 0

923

253 5

258

24 491 66 1 37 17 1 12 3 0

100.0%

98.1% 1.9% 100.0%

28.0%

3.7% 75.3% 10.1% 0.2% 5.7% 2.6% 0.2% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%

70.6%

84.6% 15.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1.4%

CITYWIDE %

652

TOTAL

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Subtotal

TOTAL C FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Arraignment Affidavit Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=345)

Percentage

99.7

0.3

Bronx (N=240)

Continued

99.2

0.8

Manhattan (N=210)

99.5

0.5

Arraignment Outcome Trans. to Fam. Court

1998 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=128)

Dismissed

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Outcome By Borough:

98.4

1.6

Citywide (N=923)

99.3

0.3 0.3

-24-

-25Table 2b Arraignment Outcome by Affidavit Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

0.9%

2.1%

1.0%

2.3%

1.4%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

1.7%

0.5%

2.3%

1.2%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.5%

0.0%

0.2%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

233

67.5%

181

75.4%

131

62.4%

107

83.6%

652

70.6%

232 1 0

99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%

181 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

130 0 1

99.2% 0.0% 0.8% 100.0%

105 0 2

98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%

648 1 3

99.4% 0.2% 0.5% 100.0%

1.7%

5.0%

1.0%

3.1%

2.6%

6 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 1

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

23 0 1

95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 100.0%

185

53.6%

106

44.2%

105

50.0%

74.2%

491

53.2%

185 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

106 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

105 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

94 0 1

98.9% 0.0% 1.1% 100.0%

490 0 1

99.8% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%

12.2%

26.3%

11.4%

6.3%

137

14.8%

41 1 0

97.6% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

63 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

23 0 1

95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 100.0%

8 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

135 1 1

98.5% 0.7% 0.7% 100.0%

109

31.6%

22.5%

36.7%

14.1%

258

28.0%

109 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

52 2 0

96.3% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0%

77 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

256 2 0

99.2% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

108

31.3%

22.1%

35.2%

14.1%

253

27.4%

108 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

51 2 0

96.2% 3.8% 0.0% 100.0%

74 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

18 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

251 2 0

99.2% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0.3%

0.4%

1.4%

0.0%

0.5%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

5 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

345

100.0%

240

100.0%

210

100.0%

128

923

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=344)

Percentage

37.5

0.9

61.6

ROR

Bronx (N=239)

46.4

2.9

44.4

6.3

Manhattan (N=208)

40.9

1.4

56.7

1.0

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1998 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=126)

31.7

8.7

56.3

3.2

Remand

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

Citywide (N=917)

39.8

2.6

55.3

2.3

-26-

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES* ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

0.9%

2.1%

1.0%

2.4%

1.4%

3 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 5

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 0 1 9

23.1% 0.0% 7.7% 69.2% 100.0%

0.9%

1.7%

0.5%

2.4%

1.2%

3 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 8

27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 72.7% 100.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.5%

0.0%

0.2%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

232

67.4%

180

75.3%

129

62.0%

105

83.3%

646

70.4%

79 1 152 0

34.1% 0.4% 65.5% 0.0% 100.0%

72 7 91 10

40.0% 3.9% 50.6% 5.6% 100.0%

50 3 75 1

38.8% 2.3% 58.1% 0.8% 100.0%

33 10 61 1

31.4% 9.5% 58.1% 1.0% 100.0%

234 21 379 12

36.2% 3.3% 58.7% 1.9% 100.0%

1.7%

5.0%

1.0%

2.4%

2.5%

1 0 5 0

16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 9 2

8.3% 0.0% 75.0% 16.7% 100.0%

0 0 2 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 1

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

2 0 18 3

8.7% 0.0% 78.3% 13.0% 100.0%

185

53.8%

105

43.9%

104

50.0%

74.6%

488

53.2%

67 1 117 0

36.2% 0.5% 63.2% 0.0% 100.0%

49 3 51 2

46.7% 2.9% 48.6% 1.9% 100.0%

40 2 61 1

38.5% 1.9% 58.7% 1.0% 100.0%

33 9 52 0

35.1% 9.6% 55.3% 0.0% 100.0%

189 15 281 3

38.7% 3.1% 57.6% 0.6% 100.0%

11.9%

26.4%

11.1%

6.3%

135

14.7%

11 0 30 0

26.8% 0.0% 73.2% 0.0% 100.0%

22 4 31 6

34.9% 6.3% 49.2% 9.5% 100.0%

10 1 12 0

43.5% 4.3% 52.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 7 0

0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%

43 6 80 6

31.9% 4.4% 59.3% 4.4% 100.0%

109

31.7%

22.6%

37.0%

14.3%

258

28.1%

47 2 60 0

43.1% 1.8% 55.0% 0.0% 100.0%

39 0 15 0

72.2% 0.0% 27.8% 0.0% 100.0%

35 0 42 0

45.5% 0.0% 54.5% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 10 0

38.9% 5.6% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

128 3 127 0

49.6% 1.2% 49.2% 0.0% 100.0%

108

31.4%

22.2%

35.6%

14.3%

253

27.6%

47 2 59 0

43.5% 1.9% 54.6% 0.0% 100.0%

38 0 15 0

71.7% 0.0% 28.3% 0.0% 100.0%

35 0 39 0

47.3% 0.0% 52.7% 0.0% 100.0%

7 1 10 0

38.9% 5.6% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

127 3 123 0

50.2% 1.2% 48.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0.3%

0.4%

1.4%

0.0%

0.5%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

1 0 4 0

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

344

100.0%

239

100.0%

208

100.0%

126

917

100.0%

Bail Set/Not Made 57.8%

Bail Set/Made 3.0%

Females (N=126)

Bail Set/Not Made 39.7%

(N=791)

Remand 2.7%

ROR 57.9%

Males

ROR 36.5%

1998 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2D Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Remand 2.4%

-28-

344

30 0 26 0

96 3 186 3

288

100.0%

53.6% 0.0% 46.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16.3%

33.3% 1.0% 64.6% 1.0% 100.0%

83.7%

Brooklyn N %

239

18 0 11 2

93 7 95 13

208

N 87.0%

100.0%

58.1% 0.0% 35.5% 6.5% 100.0%

13.0%

208

21 0 9 1

64 3 109 1

177

100.0%

67.7% 0.0% 29.0% 3.2% 100.0%

14.9%

36.2% 1.7% 61.6% 0.6% 100.0%

85.1%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

44.7% 3.4% 45.7% 6.3% 100.0%

Bronx

126

4 0 4 0

36 11 67 4

118

100.0%

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6.3%

30.5% 9.3% 56.8% 3.4% 100.0%

93.7%

Queens N %

* Excludes 3 juveniles for whom arraignment release status was not available and 3 juveniles whose charges were dismissed.

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.

TOTAL*

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

MALES:

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Arraignment Release Status by Gender by Borough for 1998 JO Arraignments

Table 2d

917

73 0 50 3

126

289 24 457 21

791

100.0%

57.9% 0.0% 39.7% 2.4% 100.0%

13.7%

36.5% 3.0% 57.8% 2.7% 100.0%

86.3%

CITYWIDE N %

-29-

-30Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 815 dockets reached disposition13 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, a decline of three percent from 1997. This follows a nine percent decline from 1996 to 1997 and a 23 percent reduction in Criminal Court dispositions for juveniles from 1995 to 1996. The distribution of Criminal Court disposition charges shown in Exhibit 3A is similar to the distribution of charges at arrest and arraignment -- over eighty percent are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 44 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, a decrease from the 48 percent in 1997 but similar to the 44 percent transferred to the upper court in 1996 and the 42 percent in 1995. Again, there are borough differences, with Queens showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (66%, compared to roughly half in Manhattan and the Bronx but little more than a quarter in Brooklyn). Further, nearly a quarter of the JO cases citywide that were disposed in Criminal Court were dismissed, although this did not preclude the subsequent filing of non-JO charges in Family Court. Manhattan had the highest dismissal rate (36%, down dramatically from the 51% rate in 1997) and Queens the lowest (11%). The enormous range across the boroughs here may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.14 Manhattan also showed the lowest rate of transfer to Family Court (11%) up from only 1% in 1997, while Brooklyn showed the highest rate (50%), up from 39% in 1997. Citywide, a third of juvenile offender cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the reporting period were transferred to Family Court. A perhaps more interesting issue, however, is the degree to which charge relates to the likelihood the case will be transferred to Supreme Court. As presented in Exhibit 3B.2 (with the full display provided in Table 3b), the likelihood of transfer to Supreme Court for continued adult court prosecution, rather than disposition in Criminal Court, either through a dismissal or a transfer to Family Court, varies by charge severity. Each A-felony docket was transferred to Supreme Court, as compared to half of the B-felony dockets and barely a quarter of the C-felony dockets. The strong relationship between charge severity and the likelihood of prosecution in the upper court is evident in each borough. 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, 13

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 not subject to adult prosecution. Their only dispositions in Criminal Court can be dismissal or transfer to Family Court. 14

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

-31Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

perhaps in part because the defendant is not always present in court when the Grand Jury outcomes are recorded. Finally, Exhibits 3C and 3D present, respectively, the mean (arithmetic) number of appearances and days between Criminal Court arraignment and disposition separately for the three felony classes, while Tables 3c and 3d present the same information differentiated by individual penal code. The mean number of appearances in Criminal Court in 1998 was 4.6, higher than means for previous periods, which were 3.0 or lower. The mean number of appearances did not vary by release status but was slightly longer for juveniles arraigned on B(4.7 appearances) rather than C- (4.1 appearances) felony charges. The mean number of days in Criminal Court (31.5 days) was lower than in previous periods. The mean number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court was generally higher for those released, regardless of charge class. This is in accordance with speedy trial regulations, which set more stringent time limitations for processing cases for defendants in detention.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=336)

Percentage

2.1 0.9

54.5

31.3

4.2

7.1

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=165)

1.2 0.6

54.5

31.5

7.3

4.8

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, and C felonies

Bronx (N=209)

4.8 1.4

49.3

17.7

12.9

13.9

Att. Murder 2

Queens (N=105)

3.8 1.9

75.2

11.4

1.0 6.7

Assault 1

1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=815)

Other*

2.8 1.1

55.8

25.3

7.4

7.6

-32-

336

105 1

106

7 183 14 0 12 2 0 9 0 0

227

3 0 0

100.0%

99.1% 0.9% 100.0%

31.5%

3.1% 80.6% 6.2% 0.0% 5.3% 0.9% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

Brooklyn N %

3 0 0

209

37 0

10 103 27 0 14 10 1 3 1 0

169

N 1.4%

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17.7%

5.9% 60.9% 16.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.9% 0.6% 1.8% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

80.9%

165

52 2

2 90 12 0 3 1 0 0 2 0

110

1 0 0

100.0%

96.3% 3.7% 100.0%

32.7%

1.8% 81.8% 10.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

66.7%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.6%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Bronx

12 0

4 79 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11.4%

4.4% 86.8% 7.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

86.7%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.9%

Queens %

105

9 0 0

815

206 3

209

23 455 60 0 30 13 1 12 3 0

100.0%

98.6% 1.4% 100.0%

25.6%

3.9% 76.2% 10.1% 0.0% 5.0% 2.2% 0.2% 2.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%

73.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.1%

CITYWIDE %

597

TOTAL

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Subtotal

TOTAL C FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Criminal Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-33-

100%

[812] *

Citywide

[105]

Queens

[162]

Manhattan

[209]

Bronx

[336]

Brooklyn

(33.6)

50%

(11.1)

(29.7)

(22.9)

25%

50%

(43.6)

(52.5)

(50.7)

75%

(65.7)

Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(28.0)

Transfers To FC

*These totals exclude "other" dispositions (three in Manhattan).

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are the percentages of total outcomes.

(11.4)

(22.8)

(36.4)

(19.6)

(21.7)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(50.3)

Dismissals

1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

-34-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent

0.3%

(N=597)

26.8%

Total B Felonies

23.3%

Transfers to FC

(N=9)

49.6%

Dismissals

Total A Felonies

100.0%

Transfers to SC

1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

54.1%

0.5%

(N=209)

Total C Felonies

23.4% 22%

Other

Exhibit 3B.2 Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-35-

-36Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

0.9%

1.4%

0.6%

1.9%

1.1%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 9 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

1.4%

0.6%

1.9%

1.1%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 9 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0

227

67.6%

169

80.9%

110

66.7%

86.7%

597

73.3%

59 78 90 0

26.0% 34.4% 39.6% 0.0% 100.0%

38 94 37 0

22.5% 55.6% 21.9% 0.0% 100.0%

32 62 14 2

29.1% 56.4% 12.7% 1.8% 100.0%

10 62 19 0

11.0% 68.1% 20.9% 0.0% 100.0%

139 296 160 2

23.3% 49.6% 26.8% 0.3% 100.0%

2.1%

4.8%

1.2%

3.8%

2.8%

1 4 2 0

14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 8 2 0

0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 3 0 0

25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 16 5 0

8.7% 69.6% 21.7% 0.0% 100.0%

183

54.5%

103

49.3%

54.5%

75.2%

455

55.8%

52 58 73 0

28.4% 31.7% 39.9% 0.0% 100.0%

15 65 23 0

14.6% 63.1% 22.3% 0.0% 100.0%

24 54 10 2

26.7% 60.0% 11.1% 2.2% 100.0%

6 55 18 0

7.6% 69.6% 22.8% 0.0% 100.0%

97 232 124 2

21.3% 51.0% 27.3% 0.4% 100.0%

11.0%

26.8%

10.9%

7.6%

119

14.6%

6 16 15 0

16.2% 43.2% 40.5% 0.0% 100.0%

23 21 12 0

41.1% 37.5% 21.4% 0.0% 100.0%

8 7 3 0

44.4% 38.9% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

3 4 1 0

37.5% 50.0% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

40 48 31 0

33.6% 40.3% 26.1% 0.0% 100.0%

106

31.5%

17.7%

32.7%

11.4%

209

25.6%

14 13 79 0

13.2% 12.3% 74.5% 0.0% 100.0%

3 9 25 0

8.1% 24.3% 67.6% 0.0% 100.0%

27 22 4 1

50.0% 40.7% 7.4% 1.9% 100.0%

2 5 5 0

16.7% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

46 49 113 1

22.0% 23.4% 54.1% 0.5% 100.0%

105

31.3%

17.7%

31.5%

11.4%

206

25.3%

14 13 78 0

13.3% 12.4% 74.3% 0.0% 100.0%

3 9 25 0

8.1% 24.3% 67.6% 0.0% 100.0%

25 22 4 1

48.1% 42.3% 7.7% 1.9% 100.0%

2 5 5 0

16.7% 41.7% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

44 49 112 1

21.4% 23.8% 54.4% 0.5% 100.0%

0.0%

1.2%

0.0%

0.4%

2 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

165

100.0%

105

815

100.0%

0.3%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

336

100.0%

209

100.0%

Total B Felonies (N=573)

4.7

(N=9)

4.7

6.2 5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Total A Felonies

Mean Number of Appearances

ROR

4.1

Remand

4.1

(N=218)

Total C Felonies

4.3

Exhibit 3C Mean Number of Criminal Court Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide: 1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

-37-

-38Table 3c Mean Number of Criminal Court Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge At Disposition by Borough for 1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

3.0

2.0

3.2

0.0

4.8

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

0 0 1 8

0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

3.0

2.0

3.2

0.0

4.8

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

0 0 1 8

0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0

222

4.0

157

5.3

108

5.0

5.3

573

4.7

73 1 148 0

4.0 7.0 4.0 0.0

62 6 82 7

4.8 6.0 5.6 5.0

35 1 72 0

5.5 9.0 4.7 0.0

23 5 57 1

5.0 5.6 5.4 5.0

193 13 359 8

4.7 6.2 4.7 5.0

3.8

5.9

5.0

5.7

5.2

1 0 5 0

5.0 0.0 3.6 0.0

1 0 7 2

5.0 0.0 6.0 6.0

0 0 2 0

0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

0 0 2 1

0.0 0.0 6.0 5.0

2 0 16 3

5.0 0.0 5.1 5.7

180

3.9

5.1

4.9

5.1

439

4.6

62 1 117 0

4.1 7.0 3.9 0.0

42 3 48 1

4.7 6.3 5.4 7.0

30 1 58 0

5.1 9.0 4.7 0.0

23 4 49 0

5.0 5.8 5.2 0.0

157 9 272 1

4.6 6.4 4.5 7.0

4.3

5.4

5.5

6.6

113

5.1

10 0 26 0

3.8 0.0 4.5 0.0

19 3 27 4

4.9 5.7 6.0 4.0

5 0 12 0

7.8 0.0 4.5 0.0

0 1 6 0

0.0 5.0 6.8 0.0

34 4 71 4

5.0 5.5 5.2 4.0

107

3.6

4.0

4.9

5.7

218

4.1

47 2 58 0

3.5 4.0 3.6 0.0

28 0 15 0

4.0 0.0 4.0 1.0

18 0 36 0

5.6 0.0 4.6 0.0

6 1 7 0

4.7 5.0 6.7 0.0

99 3 116 0

4.1 4.3 4.1 0.0

106

3.5

4.0

5.0

5.7

215

4.1

47 2 57 0

3.5 4.0 3.5 0.0

28 0 15 0

4.0 0.0 4.1 0.0

18 0 34 0

5.6 0.0 4.6 0.0

6 1 7 0

4.7 5.0 6.7 0.0

99 3 113 0

4.1 4.3 4.1 0.0

5.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

3.7

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 2 0

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 3 0

0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0

332

3.9

203

5.0

163

5.0

102

5.3

800

4.6

TOTAL B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ROBBERY 1: (160.15) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand OTHER B FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL C FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand ROBBERY 2: (160.10) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand OTHER C FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 15 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

10.1

(N=9)

Total A Felonies

Mean Number of Days

ROR

43.5

24.9

(N=573)

Total B Felonies

41.1

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

42.5

Remand

1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

24.8

(N=218)

Total C Felonies

22.7

Exhibit 3D Mean Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Release Status and Charge Severity at Disposition Citywide:

-39-

-40Table 3d Mean Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Release Status and Charge at Disposition by Borough for 1998 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

4.7

5.3

4.0

25.0

9.4

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

0 0 1 8

0.0 0.0 4.0 10.1

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

4.7

5.3

4.0

25.0

9.4

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

0 0 1 8

0.0 0.0 4.0 10.1

222

17.2

157

26.7

108

55.1

46.3

573

31.3

73 1 148 0

30.8 25.0 10.4 0.0

62 6 82 7

37.3 29.2 20.1 7.4

35 1 72 0

81.7 115.0 41.3 0.0

23 5 57 1

42.1 43.8 48.6 28.0

193 13 359 8

43.5 41.1 24.9 10.0

16.0

12.5

17.5

35.7

17.3

1 0 5 0

48.0 0.0 9.0 0.0

1 0 7 2

9.0 0.0 15.0 5.5

0 0 2 0

0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0

0 0 2 1

0.0 0.0 39.5 28.0

2 0 16 3

28.5 0.0 16.7 13.0

180

18.2

24.0

53.6

44.7

439

31.2

62 1 117 0

32.7 25.0 10.5 0.0

42 3 48 1

34.6 32.7 14.3 15.0

30 1 58 0

74.5 115.0 41.7 0.0

23 4 49 0

42.1 44.8 45.9 0.0

157 9 272 1

42.6 46.3 24.2 15.0

12.4

34.1

67.3

69.1

113

34.3

10 0 26 0

17.9 0.0 10.2 0.0

19 3 27 4

44.5 25.7 31.7 6.5

5 0 12 0

124.4 0.0 43.5 0.0

0 1 6 0

0.0 40.0 74.0 0.0

34 4 71 4

48.4 29.3 29.4 6.5

107

16.6

27.1

63.9

54.5

218

32.8

47 2 58 0

27.5 17.0 7.8 0.0

28 0 15 0

36.1 0.0 10.3 0.0

18 0 36 0

91.3 0.0 50.2 0.0

6 1 7 0

43.7 34.0 66.7 0.0

99 3 116 0

42.5 22.7 24.8 0.0

106

16.7

27.1

66.3

54.5

215

33.3

47 2 57 0

27.5 17.0 7.9 0.0

28 0 15 0

36.1 0.0 10.3 0.0

18 0 34 0

91.3 0.0 53.0 0.0

6 1 7 0

43.7 34.0 66.7 0.0

99 3 113 0

42.5 22.7 25.4 0.0

4.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

3.3

0 0 1 0

0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 2 0

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 3 0

0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0

332

16.9

203

26.4

163

57.7

102

47.1

800

31.5

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 15 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

-41Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT When examining the charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,15 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), first and second degree robbery are still the most common charges and account together for eight of every ten cases. Although second degree murder charges account for less than one percent of all arrests during this reporting period, this charge category accounts for two percent of cases in the upper court in the period. Similarly, attempted second degree murder accounted for one percent of arrest charges in the year but nearly four percent of charges associated with cases that reached first appearance in Supreme Court in 1998. First degree robbery accounts for 28 percent of all juvenile arrests during 1998, and 53 percent of all juvenile arraignments, but 61 percent of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court in 1998. When looking at the cases of juveniles at the first appearance in Supreme Court, more serious JO charges were more likely to be represented than were the less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, 26 percent of the defendants in these cases pled guilty at their first appearance in Supreme Court, slightly lower than the 28 percent in 1997, but up from 22 percent in 1996. Forty-four percent of the defendants pled not guilty at their first appearance, similar to 1997 but a decrease from the 52 percent who pled not guilty during the previous year. More than a quarter of the cases were continued without a plea because the initial hearing in Supreme Court was probably not the actual Supreme Court arraignment, but was instead a prearraignment conference. The high proportion of defendants who pled guilty in cases in the Bronx (55%) was notable, and was even higher than it was in 1997 (52%) or in 1996 (44%). The proportion who pled guilty in cases in Queens (45%) was lower than in 1997 (57%, up from only 39% in 1996 and from only 15% in 1995). The large proportion of guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance in these boroughs reflects borough differences in plea policies and the use of a Superior Court Information (SCI).16 The proportion of cases citywide with juveniles who pled guilty at the first appearance in Supreme Court was only 26 percent, reflecting the very low plea rates at the first Supreme Court appearance in Manhattan (4%) and Brooklyn (0%). In the Bronx and Queens, 54 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of defendants with B-felony charges pled guilty at the first appearance in Supreme Court. Among those who faced C-felony charges, 44 percent of the Queens juveniles and almost three quarters of those in the Bronx pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance. However, only 14 juveniles in the Bronx and only nine juveniles in Queens with C-felony charges had their first appearance in Supreme Court in 1998. Exhibit 4C presents the percentage of cases in which defendants were released at the first appearance in Supreme Court, regardless of the case disposition status leaving that appearance. This includes cases continued for disposition and cases continued for sentence. Juveniles were 15

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. 16

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 all cases for this report.

-42Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

released on ROR or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in 47 percent of cases, much higher than the rate in 1997. Citywide, juveniles prosecuted in the Supreme Court were released on ROR at the first appearance in a third of all cases. Juveniles posted bail to secure release as of the date of the first appearance in 13 percent of cases, were held on bail in more than a quarter of the cases and were remanded with no bail set at that early stage of Supreme Court prosecution in a quarter of the cases. Compared to 1997 data, the ROR rate increased by about four percentage points, while the proportion released on bail increased by three percentage points. The proportion held on bail was comparable for the two years, while the proportion remanded without bail decreased from a third to a quarter. As shown in Table 4c, the release rate varied substantially by charge; no defendant charged with an A felony was released, as compared to 48 percent of those charged with B felonies, and 53 percent of those charged with C felonies. The observed citywide changes are not reflected equally in the boroughs. The citywide increase in ROR rates (from 25% in 1996 to 30% in 1997 and 34% in 1998) were visible in Brooklyn and the Bronx from 1996 to 1997, and in Queens and especially Manhattan from 1997 to 1998. The ROR rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court remains highest in the Bronx (50%), but, in 1998, Queens (30%) and Manhattan (29%), not Brooklyn (25%) followed. When the proportions of cases with juveniles who secured release on ROR or bail are considered together, the Bronx and Queens release rates remain very close (58%), and much higher than the rates in Brooklyn (40%) or Manhattan (36%). Exhibit 4D presents the mean number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court, for each charge class, separately for each release status. In general, it took roughly two and a half weeks (18 days), to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d). While in previous years, cases with more severe charges tended to move a bit more quickly to the upper court, the reverse was true for 1998: A-felony cases showed a mean of 23 days, B-felony cases took a mean of 19 days, and C-felony cases took 13 days. This probably reflects a change in the relationship between length of time and release status at the first appearance in the upper court. In previous years, juveniles who were released on ROR showed longer mean elapsed times than did detainees, and juveniles who faced lesser felonies were more likely to be RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d than were these facing more serious felony charges. In 1998, however, the cases of juveniles who secured ROR by the first Supreme Court appearance proceeded more quickly than did cases for other juvenile defendants. Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wider than previously observed. The mean ranged from ten days in Queens (down from 14 days in 1997) to 35 days in Brooklyn (up from 31). The mean number of days in Manhattan and Bronx (both 13 days) were lower than previously observed. The consistent decrease in the mean number of days to reach the upper court in Queens might reflect the increase in the use of SCIs in that borough since in SCI cases defendants waive indictment at the last Criminal Court appearance and, typically, plead guilty in the upper court on the same day. Borough differences in the mean number of days within charge class and release status were often substantial, but should be viewed with caution because of the small numbers of cases in some of the borough-charge-release-status categories. When there are few cases, the mean can be unduly influenced by only one or two extreme cases. Yet it is clear

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

that in 1998, in each borough, cases for juveniles who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d moved more quickly to Supreme Court than did the cases of other juveniles. In each borough except Queens (where there were only 8 C-felony cases), juvenile cases with B-felony charges reached Supreme Court from Criminal Court more quickly than did juveniles cases with C-felony charges.

-44-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 60.7%

Att. Murder 2 3.9%

Murder 2 2.1% Other* 6.8%

Robbery 2 19.1% Assault 1 7.4%

(N=336)

* Includes other A and B felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=92)

Percentage

5.4 2.2

55.4

15.2

10.9

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=82) *Includes other A and B felonies

5.2 3.1

60.8

15.5

6.2

9.3

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=97)

Att. Murder 2

1.2

54.9

31.7

7.3

4.9

Assault 1

1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Queens (N=65)

Other*

Exhibit 4A.2 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance By Borough:

3.1 3.1

75.4

13.8

4.6

-45-

14 0

5 51 10 0 9 1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15.2%

6.6% 67.1% 13.2% 0.0% 11.8% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

82.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.2%

Brooklyn N % N

15 0

5 59 6 1 1 6 0 0 1 0

3 0 0

3.1%

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15.5%

6.3% 74.7% 7.6% 1.3% 1.3% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

81.4%

26 0

1 45 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

0 1 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

31.7%

1.8% 81.8% 10.9% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

67.1%

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.2%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Bronx N

9 0

2 49 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13.8%

3.7% 90.7% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

83.1%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.1%

Queens %

7 1 0

336

64 0

13 204 25 1 12 7 0 0 2 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

19.0%

4.9% 77.3% 9.5% 0.4% 4.5% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

78.6%

87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

2.4%

CITYWIDE %

264

TOTAL

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Subtotal

TOTAL C FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-46-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=86)

Percentage

72.1

26.7

1.2

Bronx (N=95)

Pled Guilty

54.7

26.3

16.8

2.1

Manhattan (N=81)

3.7

49.4

46.9

Disposition Pled Not Guilty Continued

Queens (N=64)

45.3

28.1

23.4

3.1

Bench Warrant

1998 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=326)

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

25.8

44.5

28.2

1.5

-47-

-48-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

2.3%

3.2%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

1.2%

Queens % 3.1%

2.5%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 8 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.1%

2.1%

0 2 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 7 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.3%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.3%

3.2%

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 3 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

1.2%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

CITYWIDE N %

0 2 0 0

0 0 0 0

0.0%

81.4%

82.1%

67.9%

82.8%

256

78.5%

0 55 15 0

0.0% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 100.0%

42 18 16 2

53.8% 23.1% 20.5% 2.6% 100.0%

3 27 25 0

5.5% 49.1% 45.5% 0.0% 100.0%

25 15 11 2

47.2% 28.3% 20.8% 3.8% 100.0%

70 115 67 4

27.3% 44.9% 26.2% 1.6% 100.0%

5.8%

5.3%

1.2%

3.1%

4.0%

0 4 1 0

0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 2 0 0

60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 8 2 0

23.1% 61.5% 15.4% 0.0% 100.0%

54.7%

61.1%

55.6%

75.0%

198

60.7%

0 35 12 0

0.0% 74.5% 25.5% 0.0% 100.0%

36 9 11 2

62.1% 15.5% 19.0% 3.4% 100.0%

3 21 21 0

6.7% 46.7% 46.7% 0.0% 100.0%

24 14 8 2

50.0% 29.2% 16.7% 4.2% 100.0%

63 79 52 4

31.8% 39.9% 26.3% 2.0% 100.0%

20.9%

15.8%

11.1%

4.7%

13.8%

0 16 2 0

0.0% 88.9% 11.1% 0.0% 100.0%

3 7 5 0

20.0% 46.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 5 4 0

0.0% 55.6% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 28 13 0

8.9% 62.2% 28.9% 0.0% 100.0%

16.3%

14.7%

30.9%

14.1%

19.0%

0 5 8 1

0.0% 35.7% 57.1% 7.1% 100.0%

10 4 0 0

71.4% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 12 13 0

0.0% 48.0% 52.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 4 0

44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

14 22 25 1

22.6% 35.5% 40.3% 1.6% 100.0%

16.3%

14.7%

30.9%

14.1%

19.0%

0 5 8 1

0.0% 35.7% 57.1% 7.1% 100.0%

10 4 0 0

71.4% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 12 13 0

0.0% 48.0% 52.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 4 0

44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

14 22 25 1

22.6% 35.5% 40.3% 1.6% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0 86

0 0 0 0 100.0%

326

100.0%

Note: The percentages in bold are those each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. The percentages shaded bold are the subtotals for each felony group and are based on the total N for each borough and citywide. * Ten cases were excluded from this total: the first appearance line shows dismissed for 9 and transferred to Family Court for 1.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=83)

Percentage

25.3

14.5

41.0

19.3

50.0

7.6

14.1

28.3

Manhattan (N=80)

28.8

7.5

25.0

38.8

29.8

28.1

26.3

15.8

Remand

Queens (N=57)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=92)

ROR

1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=312)

Exhibit 4C Release Status at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough:

34.3

13.1

26.3

-49-

-50-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal MURDER 2: (125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER A FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

3.3%

1.3%

3.5%

2.6%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 8

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.4%

3.3%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0

3.5%

2.2%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.3%

0.0%

0.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

81.9%

82.6%

67.5%

82.5%

245

78.5%

15 11 32 10

22.1% 16.2% 47.1% 14.7% 100.0%

38 7 10 21

50.0% 9.2% 13.2% 27.6% 100.0%

13 4 13 24

24.1% 7.4% 24.1% 44.4% 100.0%

16 13 12 6

34.0% 27.7% 25.5% 12.8% 100.0%

82 35 67 61

33.5% 14.3% 27.3% 24.9% 100.0%

6.0%

5.4%

1.3%

3.5%

4.2%

1 0 3 1

20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 3

20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

3 0 5 5

23.1% 0.0% 38.5% 38.5% 100.0%

54.2%

60.9%

55.0%

73.7%

187

59.9%

12 8 20 5

26.7% 17.8% 44.4% 11.1% 100.0%

31 6 5 14

55.4% 10.7% 8.9% 25.0% 100.0%

12 4 9 19

27.3% 9.1% 20.5% 43.2% 100.0%

16 11 10 5

38.1% 26.2% 23.8% 11.9% 100.0%

71 29 44 43

38.0% 15.5% 23.5% 23.0% 100.0%

21.7%

16.3%

11.3%

5.3%

14.4%

2 3 9 4

11.1% 16.7% 50.0% 22.2% 100.0%

6 1 4 4

40.0% 6.7% 26.7% 26.7% 100.0%

0 0 4 5

0.0% 0.0% 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

0 2 1 0

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

8 6 18 13

17.8% 13.3% 40.0% 28.9% 100.0%

15.7%

14.1%

31.3%

14.0%

18.9%

6 1 2 4

46.2% 7.7% 15.4% 30.8% 100.0%

8 0 3 2

61.5% 0.0% 23.1% 15.4% 100.0%

10 2 7 6

40.0% 8.0% 28.0% 24.0% 100.0%

1 3 3 1

12.5% 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0%

25 6 15 13

42.4% 10.2% 25.4% 22.0% 100.0%

15.7%

14.1%

31.3%

14.0%

18.9%

6 1 2 4

46.2% 7.7% 15.4% 30.8% 100.0%

8 0 3 2

61.5% 0.0% 23.1% 15.4% 100.0%

10 2 7 6

40.0% 8.0% 28.0% 24.0% 100.0%

1 3 3 1

12.5% 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 100.0%

25 6 15 13

42.4% 10.2% 25.4% 22.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0 83

0 0 0 0 100.0%

312

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 24 juveniles for whom release status was not available.

(N=8)

Total A Felonies

Mean Number of Days

ROR

12.4

15.2

(N=243)

Total B Felonies

21.9

28.9

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

10.7

Remand

1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

16.3

(N=56)

Total C Felonies

11.6

15.9

Exhibit 4D Mean Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance By Release Status and Charge Severity Citywide:

-51-

-52Table 4d Mean Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance By Release Status and Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

30.0

26.3

17.0

14.0

23.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0

0 0 0 8

0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

30.0

26.3

17.0

14.0

23.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0

0 0 0 3

0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0

0 0 0 8

0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0

36.2

13.1

14.3

9.6

243

18.9

14 11 31 10

19.5 45.0 47.7 30.2

38 7 10 21

12.8 16.1 23.0 7.8

13 4 13 24

13.6 14.8 12.8 15.4

16 13 12 6

4.4 7.8 15.6 15.3

81 35 66 61

12.4 21.9 28.9 15.2

28.8

8.6

14.0

21.0

17.8

1 0 2 1

28.0 0.0 30.0 27.0

1 0 1 3

21.0 0.0 0.0 29.0

1 0 0 0

14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 1 1

0.0 0.0 14.0 28.0

3 0 4 5

21.0 0.0 18.5 15.4

29.0

7.7

15.4

9.2

186

14.9

11 8 20 5

18.4 27.3 35.2 31.2

31 6 5 14

5.7 14.8 17.0 5.7

12 4 9 19

13.6 14.8 13.2 17.9

16 11 10 5

4.4 7.9 16.6 12.8

70 29 44 43

8.8 15.6 24.4 14.9

55.6

34.5

8.7

7.0

35.9

2 3 9 4

21.5 92.3 62.4 29.8

6 1 4 4

47.8 24.0 36.2 15.5

0 0 4 5

0.0 0.0 11.8 6.2

0 2 1 0

0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0

8 6 18 13

41.3 52.5 42.3 16.3

27.5

6.3

11.2

11.6

13.4

5 0 2 4

21.2 0.0 26.5 36.0

8 0 3 1

5.5 0.0 10.3 0.0

10 2 7 6

10.7 14.5 13.0 8.7

1 3 3 0

0.0 9.7 21.3 0.0

24 5 15 11

10.7 11.6 15.9 16.3

27.5

6.3

11.2

11.6

13.4

5 0 2 4

21.2 0.0 26.5 36.0

8 0 3 1

5.5 0.0 10.3 0.0

10 2 7 6

10.7 14.5 13.0 8.7

1 3 3 1

0.0 9.7 21.3 0.0

24 5 15 12

10.7 11.6 15.9 16.3

0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

34.9

12.6

13.4

10.0

307

18.1

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 29 juveniles for whom number of days or release status were not available.

-53Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 247 cases of juvenile offenders reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 1997, nearly one third fewer than were disposed in the upper court in 1997. Borough comparisons in the volume of cases disposed in 1998 and 1997 in the upper courts show that fewer cases reached disposition in each borough, but the decrease was greatest in Queens (48%), followed by Brooklyn (34%), compared to the Bronx (24%) and Manhattan (14%). The charge composition of cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions examined at other milestones in this report. Nearly seven of every ten cases involved a charge of first degree robbery, an increase from 60 percent in 1997 and 53 percent in 1996, and first and second degree robbery together account for more than eight of every ten dispositions, again up slightly from the previous reporting period. Cases disposed in the Supreme Court in 1998 were slightly less likely to involve a murder or attempted murder charge (0.8% and 3.6%, respectively) than they were in 1996 (4.5% each). A-felony charges accounted for less than one percent of disposed cases, B-felony charges accounted for more than eight of every ten disposed cases, and C-felony charges accounted for less than one in seven cases disposed in Supreme Court in 1998. Borough differences in the distribution of disposition charges are large (Exhibit 5A.2 and Table 5a), as they have been in previous reporting periods. The proportion of cases with first or second degree robbery charges ranged from 70 percent in Brooklyn to 77 percent in the Bronx and 96 percent in Manhattan and Queens. The proportion of disposed cases with robbery charges in Queens is noteworthy since it represents an increase from 88 percent the previous year, and the 1997 figure for Queens was fully 20 percentage points higher than in 1996. Rape charges again account for twelve percent of dispositions in Brooklyn, but are rare or absent among dispositions in the Bronx, Manhattan, or Queens, as they were in 1997. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is quite high: Overall, almost nine of every ten JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions. The conviction rates in Queens (96%) and Manhattan (94%) were particularly high, followed by the Bronx (87%) and Brooklyn (75%). The volume of cases disposed in the Supreme Court in the four boroughs in 1998 was too low to permit comparisons of conviction rates by charge particularly because more than two thirds of the disposed cases showed first degree robbery as the disposition charge. As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, almost two thirds of the cases that reached disposition in Supreme Court during the reporting period had defendants who were released at the conclusion of the disposition appearance. This is much higher than release rates in 1995, 1996 or 1997, which ranged between 47 and 55 percent. The juveniles secured release on bail (14%) or on recognizance (51%) pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing. Juveniles in the cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were less likely to secure release in Brooklyn (55%) than in the Bronx (64%) and were more likely to be released in Manhattan or Queens (70%). Release on recognizance was more frequent in Manhattan (59%) and the Bronx (58%) than in Queens (44%) or Brooklyn (39%). Release on

-54Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

bail was infrequent in the Bronx, occurring in only four disposed cases, with five bail releases in Manhattan and eight in Brooklyn. Although the juveniles in only eleven cases disposed in Queens in 1998 secured release on bail, this accounts for more than a quarter of the cases of juveniles disposed in the Queens upper court during the reporting period. Exhibit 5D.1 and 5D.2 present information regarding the Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts). Exhibit 5D.1 presents the proportion disposed in those parts, while Exhibit 5D.2 provides information about any differences in type of disposition, separately for each felony class. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, the proportion was nearly six of every ten (59%), down from 63 percent in 1997. This varied rather substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (94%), followed by Brooklyn (81%) compared to only 42 percent in Queens and only 31 percent in the Bronx. The low proportion in Queens and the Bronx may reflect a greater use of pleas to SCIs, which typically take place in non-JO Parts. As noted earlier, Bronx and Queens make greater use of SCIs than do the other boroughs. The differences may also reflect court and district attorney policies regarding particular types of cases, and perhaps the presence of adult codefendants, information which is not available in the CJA data. Previous reporting periods showed some differences in the types of dispositions handed down in JO Parts as compared to non-JO Parts. Specifically, the non-JO Parts showed a higher conviction rate than the JO Parts. In contrast, the 1998 conviction rates for the non-JO and JO Parts were almost identical (88%, versus 87% in the JO Parts). The mean number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition are presented in Exhibits 5E and 5F.17 In general, the mean number of appearances (26) and days (494) was very high for the two cases disposed at the A-felony level. The mean number of appearances and the mean number of days were lower for cases with Bfelony disposition charges (9 appearances and 111 days), and lower still for cases with C-felony disposition charges (6 appearances and 44 days). The mean number of appearances was one appearance lower and the mean number of days was about a month and a half lower than in 1997. The citywide decrease in the mean number of appearances and the mean number of days in Supreme Court again mask borough differences. The mean number of appearances ranged from barely three in Queens to thirteen in Brooklyn. The mean number of appearances decreased in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, but not in Manhattan where the mean number of appearances increased slightly. Similarly, the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from only 16 days in Queens to 117 days in the Bronx, 120 days in Manhattan and 140 days in Brooklyn. The citywide figures reflect an almost three-month decrease in the Bronx, a two-month decrease in Brooklyn and a one-month decrease in Manhattan and Queens, when compared to the previous reporting period. 17

For information purposes, corresponding means for the full distribution of penal law categories are displayed for each borough, and are presented in Tables 5e and 5f. However, extreme caution should be used when examining these numbers, because the individual number of cases on which the means are based is small, often amounting to one or two cases.

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

Length of case, in terms of both appearances and days, was also examined by the type of release status set for the juvenile at the first appearance in Supreme Court. Among cases with Bor C-felony charges at the first appearance, the number of appearances was greater for cases with defendants who were held on bail than for other juveniles. Cases with defendants charged with B felonies who secured release on bail, however, showed the highest mean number of days to disposition. This reflects differences by release status in the average number of days between appearances. Cases for juveniles charged with B felonies in Supreme Court showed an average of 17 days between appearances when the juvenile was released on bail compared to only 11.8 days when the juvenile was held on bail, 11.9 days when remanded with no bail set and 12.7 days when RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d. Tables 5g, 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 at disposition, citywide. The mean number of appearances and days to disposition was higher in the JO Parts, as compared to the non-JO Parts, for almost every disposition charge and disposition-chargeseverity category examined. Again, this finding probably reflects the increased use of SCIs, which generally reach disposition faster than other cases, and the greater likelihood of these cases to be completed in non-JO Parts. The number of Supreme Court appearances for juvenile offender cases disposed in a JO Part with a B-felony disposition charge was 12.5, as compared to 4.2 for similar cases disposed elsewhere; the number of days from the first Supreme Court appearance through disposition was 162 compared to 50. At the C-felony conviction charge level, the differences were even wider: Dispositions in the JO Parts took a mean of eleven appearances and nearly five months longer than those in non-JO Parts.

-56-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 68.8%

Murder 2 0.8% Other* 6.1%

Assault 1 6.9% Att. Murder 2 3.6% Robbery 2 13.8% (N=247)

*Includes other A and B felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

4.5

58.2

11.9

13.4

Murder 2

6.0 1.2

64.3

13.1

8.3

7.1

Manhattan (N=48)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, and C felonies

Bronx (N=84)

Att. Murder 2

2.1

79.2

16.7

2.1

Assault 1

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5A.2 Charge At Supreme Court Disposition By Borough:

Queens (N=48)

Other*

2.1

81.3

14.6

2.1

-57-

8 0

3 39 8 0 8 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

11.9%

5.1% 66.1% 13.6% 0.0% 13.6% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

88.1%

0.0%

Brooklyn N % N

11 0

5 54 7 1 1 4 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

1.2%

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13.1%

6.9% 75.0% 9.7% 1.4% 1.4% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

85.7%

8 0

0 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16.7%

0.0% 97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

81.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.1%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Bronx N

7 0

1 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14.6%

2.4% 95.1% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

85.4%

0.0%

Queens %

2 0 0

247

34 0

9 170 17 1 9 5 0 0 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13.8%

4.3% 80.6% 8.1% 0.5% 4.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

85.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.8%

CITYWIDE %

211

TOTAL

Robbery 2: (160.10) Burglary 2: (140.25) Subtotal

TOTAL C FELONIES:

TOTAL B FELONIES:

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

TOTAL A FELONIES:

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Charge at Supreme Court Disposition by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-58-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

74.6

25.4

Manhattan (N=48)

93.8

6.3

Queens (N=48)

95.8

4.2

* Other includes Transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=84)

86.9

13.1

Disposition Conviction Other*

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=247)

86.6

13.4

-59-

-60Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: Conviction Other* Subtotal MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25) Conviction Other* Subtotal TOTAL B FELONIES: Conviction Other* Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) Conviction Other* Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) Conviction Other* Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES Conviction Other* Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: Conviction Other* Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Conviction Other* Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES Conviction Other* Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N % 0

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0 0

Queens N %

1.2%

2.1%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

1.2%

2.1%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % N 2

0.8%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0.8%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

88.1%

85.7%

81.3%

85.4%

211

85.4%

42 17

71.2% 28.8% 100.0%

63 9

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

37 2

94.9% 5.1% 100.0%

40 1

97.6% 2.4% 100.0%

182 29

86.3% 13.7% 100.0%

4.5%

6.0%

0.0%

2.1%

3.6%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

4 1

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

0 0

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 3

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

58.2%

64.3%

79.2%

81.3%

170

68.8%

32 7

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

49 5

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

36 2

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

38 1

97.4% 2.6% 100.0%

155 15

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

25.4%

15.5%

2.1%

13.0%

9 8

52.9% 47.1% 100.0%

10 3

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 11

65.6% 34.4% 100.0%

11.9%

13.1%

16.7%

14.6%

13.8%

8 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 1

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

7 1

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

6 1

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

31 3

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

11.9%

13.1%

16.7%

14.6%

13.8%

8 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 1

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

7 1

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

6 1

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

31 3

91.2% 8.8% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 67

0 0 100.0%

247

100.0%

Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=51)

Percentage

39.2

15.7

9.8

35.3

58.0

5.8

4.3

31.9

Manhattan (N=44)

59.1

11.4

2.3

27.3

44.2

25.6

7.0

23.3

Remand

Queens (N=43)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=69)

ROR

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=207)

Exhibit 5C Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

50.7

13.5

5.8

30.0

-61-

-62Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

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

0 0 0 0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

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

0 0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL*

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0 0 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0

Queens %

2.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2.3%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE % 1

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.5%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

84.3%

87.0%

81.8%

86.0%

176

85.0%

13 8 5 17

30.2% 18.6% 11.6% 39.5% 100.0%

34 4 2 20

56.7% 6.7% 3.3% 33.3% 100.0%

23 2 1 10

63.9% 5.6% 2.8% 27.8% 100.0%

17 8 3 9

45.9% 21.6% 8.1% 24.3% 100.0%

87 22 11 56

49.4% 12.5% 6.3% 31.8% 100.0%

2.0%

5.8%

0.0%

2.3%

2.9%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 4

0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 100.0%

62.7%

68.1%

81.8%

81.4%

150

72.5%

10 6 4 12

31.3% 18.8% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0%

29 3 1 14

61.7% 6.4% 2.1% 29.8% 100.0%

23 2 1 10

63.9% 5.6% 2.8% 27.8% 100.0%

17 6 3 9

48.6% 17.1% 8.6% 25.7% 100.0%

79 17 9 45

52.7% 11.3% 6.0% 30.0% 100.0%

19.6%

13.0%

0.0%

2.3%

9.7%

3 2 1 4

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 40.0% 100.0%

5 1 0 3

55.6% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 4 1 7

40.0% 20.0% 5.0% 35.0% 100.0%

15.7%

13.0%

15.9%

14.0%

14.5%

7 0 0 1

87.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

6 0 1 2

66.7% 0.0% 11.1% 22.2% 100.0%

3 3 0 1

42.9% 42.9% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

2 3 0 1

33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

18 6 1 5

60.0% 20.0% 3.3% 16.7% 100.0%

15.7%

13.0%

15.9%

14.0%

14.5%

7 0 0 1

87.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

6 0 1 2

66.7% 0.0% 11.1% 22.2% 100.0%

3 3 0 1

42.9% 42.9% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0%

2 3 0 1

33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

18 6 1 5

60.0% 20.0% 3.3% 16.7% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0 51

0 0 0 0 100.0%

207

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. * Includes juveniles who are convicted and awaiting sentencing as well as those whose cases are transferred to Family Court.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=67)

Percentage

80.6

19.4

Bronx (N=84)

31.0

69.0

Manhattan (N=48)

93.8

6.3

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=48)

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

41.7

58.3

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

Citywide (N=247)

58.7

41.3

-63-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10.5 3.2

(N=211)

Non-JO Part

11.5

Total B Felonies

JO Part

86.3

88.5

(N=2)

Non-JO Part

100.0

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

Total A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Convicted

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

10.0

(N=34)

7.1

Non-JO Part

92.9

Total C Felonies

JO Part

90.0

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

-64-

-65Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge at Disposition by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 1

1.2%

Queens %

2.1%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 2

0.8%

0 0 0

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.8%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

1.2%

2.1%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

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

88.1%

85.7%

81.3%

85.4%

211

85.4%

38 2 7 47

80.9% 4.3% 14.9% 100.0%

21 1 4 26

80.8% 3.8% 15.4% 100.0%

34 0 2 36

94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 100.0%

14 1 0 15

93.3% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%

107 4 13 124

86.3% 3.2% 10.5% 100.0%

6 0 6 12

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

42 0 4 46

91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

26 0 0 26

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

77 0 10 87

88.5% 0.0% 11.5% 100.0%

4.5%

6.0%

0.0%

2.1%

3.6%

1 1 1 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

1 1 0 2

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 2 1 6

50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15)

0 0 0 0 39

58.2%

64.3%

79.2%

81.3%

170

68.8%

29 1 2 32

90.6% 3.1% 6.3% 100.0%

13 0 2 15

86.7% 0.0% 13.3% 100.0%

33 0 2 35

94.3% 0.0% 5.7% 100.0%

13 1 0 14

92.9% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0%

88 2 6 96

91.7% 2.1% 6.3% 100.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

-66Table 5d (continued) Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge at Disposition by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES ROBBERY 1: (160.15)--Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

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

3 0 4 7

42.9% 0.0% 57.1% 100.0%

36 0 3 39

92.3% 0.0% 7.7% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25 0 0 25

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

67 0 7 74

90.5% 0.0% 9.5% 100.0%

25.4%

15.5%

2.1%

13.0%

8 0 4 12

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

7 0 2 9

77.8% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

16 0 6 22

72.7% 0.0% 27.3% 100.0%

3 0 2 5

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 100.0%

3 0 1 4

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

11.9%

13.1%

7 0 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

7 0 1 8

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 1 11

90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

0 0 0

11.9%

13.1%

7 0 0 7

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

7 0 1 8

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 1 11

90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

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

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 3 10

70.0% 0.0% 30.0% 100.0%

16.7%

14.6%

13.8%

87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

4 0 1 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

18 0 2 20

90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 1 14

92.9% 0.0% 7.1% 100.0%

16.7%

14.6%

13.8%

87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

4 0 1 5

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

18 0 2 20

90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 1 14

92.9% 0.0% 7.1% 100.0%

0.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal Non-JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES

0.0%

JO Part: Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

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

100.0%

247

100.0%

7.4

(N=32)

5.5

8.1

Total C Felonies

9.4

(N=191)

10.5

Total B Felonies

Mean Number of Days

Remand

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only two cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5E Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance Citywide:

-67-

-68Table 5e Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge at First Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Arraignments JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

42.0

9.0

0.0

25.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0

42.0

9.0

0.0

25.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5

13.5

6.4

11.9

2.8

191

8.7

11 7 26 8

15.3 13.3 11.7 17.5

38 5 5 20

5.6 12.6 11.2 5.3

10 3 7 16

13.1 4.3 11.4 12.7

15 9 7 4

2.5 2.4 5.0 1.0

74 24 45 48

7.4 8.0 10.5 9.4

15.8

10.7

0.0

6.0

12.1

1 0 3 0

31.0 0.0 10.7 0.0

1 0 2 3

11.0 0.0 17.0 6.3

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

2 1 5 3

21.0 6.0 13.2 6.3

12.5

5.6

10.7

2.8

150

7.7

8 5 17 5

14.4 7.6 10.9 19.8

31 3 2 14

5.6 3.0 9.5 5.5

10 3 7 12

13.1 4.3 11.4 9.9

15 7 7 4

2.5 2.1 5.0 1.0

64 18 33 35

7.1 4.2 9.7 8.5

15.7

8.0

21.0

1.0

12.8

2 2 6 3

11.0 27.5 14.3 13.7

6 2 1 3

5.0 27.0 3.0 3.0

0 0 0 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

8 5 7 10

6.5 22.0 12.7 13.4

10.9

1.6

10.1

2.0

5.8

3 0 1 2

12.7 0.0 11.0 8.0

6 0 2 2

1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0

3 2 3 1

9.0 9.0 13.7 5.0

1 3 2 1

1.0 2.3 2.5 1.0

13 5 8 6

5.5 5.0 8.1 4.0

18.9

1.6

10.1

2.0

5.8

3 0 1 2

12.7 0.0 11.0 8.0

6 0 2 2

1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0

3 2 3 1

9.0 9.0 13.7 5.0

1 3 2 1

1.0 2.3 2.5 1.0

13 5 8 6

5.5 5.0 8.1 4.0

0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13.3

6.3

11.5

2.7

225

8.5

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

93.9

26.2

(N=32)

40.8

64.1

Total C Felonies

112

(N=191)

123.7

Total B Felonies

136.4

Mean Number of Days

Remand

39.8

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only two cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

150

200

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5F Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide:

-69-

-70Table 5f Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Arraignments JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

803.0

184.0

0.0

493.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 803.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 184.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 493.5

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0

803.0

184.0

0.0

493.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 803.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 184.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 493.5

145.7

123.6

126.2

18.3

191

110.8

11 7 26 8

218.2 134.6 121.0 136.1

38 5 5 20

81.4 392.2 311.8 89.4

10 3 7 16

124.0 51.3 92.7 156.3

15 9 7 4

14.2 24.0 30.4 0.0

74 24 45 48

93.9 136.4 123.7 112.0

153.8

159.2

0.0

95.0

151.4

1 0 3 0

253.0 0.0 120.7 0.0

1 0 2 3

74.0 0.0 307.5 88.7

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0

2 1 5 3

163.5 95.0 195.4 88.7

111.7

93.2

97.7

16.6

150

81.6

8 5 17 5

116.8 87.4 100.6 165.4

31 3 2 14

72.5 17.7 458.0 102.9

10 3 7 12

124.0 51.3 92.7 90.3

15 7 7 4

14.2 17.3 30.4 0.0

64 18 33 35

72.4 42.5 105.7 95.7

234.8

232.5

354.5

0.0

213.1

2 2 6 3

606.5 252.5 178.7 87.3

6 2 1 3

128.7 954.0 28.0 27.0

0 0 0 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 354.5

0 1 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8 5 7 10

216.9 356.4 101.0 154.2

94.0

2.1

88.1

5.1

44.2

3 0 1 2

97.0 0.0 104.0 84.5

6 0 2 2

0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0

3 2 3 1

80.0 63.0 119.0 70.0

1 3 2 1

0.0 1.7 15.5 0.0

13 5 8 6

40.8 26.2 64.1 39.8

94.0

2.1

88.1

5.1

44.2

3 0 1 2

97.0 0.0 104.0 84.5

6 0 2 2

0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0

3 2 3 1

80.0 63.0 119.0 70.0

1 3 2 1

0.0 1.7 15.5 0.0

13 5 8 6

40.8 26.2 64.1 39.8

0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

140.3

116.8

120.0

16.1

225

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

104.7

12.5

Total C Felonies (N=34)

(N=211)

4.2

11.5

Total B Felonies

Mean Number of Appearances

1.4

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only two cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5G Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-71-

-72-

Table 5g Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

42.0

9.0

0.0

25.5

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 42.0

1 0

1.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 1

9.0 42.0

0.0

42.0

0.0

25.5

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 42.0

1 0

1.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 1

9.0 42.0

12.4

6.9

11.7

2.8

211

8.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

47 12

13.1 9.8

26 46

13.6 3.2

36 3

11.1 19.0

1 40

7.0 2.7

110 101

12.5 4.2

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

10.6

9.4

0.0

6.0

9.4

JO Part Non-JO Part

3 0

10.6 0.0

2 3

22.0 1.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 6.0

5 4

15.2 2.3

12.3

6.3

11.5

2.7

170

8.0

32 7

13.0 9.1

15 39

13.5 3.5

35 3

10.9 19.0

1 38

7.0 2.6

83 87

12.1 4.1

12.9

8.7

21.0

1.0

11.1

12 5

13.8 10.8

9 4

11.9 1.5

1 0

21.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 1.0

22 10

13.4 6.1

13.5

1.0

9.5

2.0

6.1

8 0

13.5 0.0

0 11

0.0 1.0

8 0

9.5 0.0

0 7

0.0 2.0

16 18

11.5 1.4

13.5

1.0

9.5

2.0

6.1

8 0

13.5 0.0

0 11

0.0 1.0

8 0

9.5 0.0

0 7

0.0 2.0

16 18

11.5 1.4

0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

12.5

6.6

11.3

2.7

247

8.4

JO Part Non-JO Part MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25): JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES:

ROBBERY 1: (160.15) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER B FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part ROBBERY 2: (160.10) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER C FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

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

50.2

(N=211)

Total B Felonies

162.3

Mean Number of Days

(N=34)

Total C Felonies

145.5

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only two cases were disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

150

200

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5H Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appeaerance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-73-

-74-

Table 5h Mean Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

803.0

184.0

0.0

493.5

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 803.0

1 0

184.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 1

184.0 803.0

0.0

803.0

0.0

493.5

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 803.0

1 0

184.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 1

184.0 803.0

136.4

128.9

124.9

17.5

211

108.6

JO Part Non-JO Part

47 12

137.7 131.4

26 46

261.9 53.7

36 3

125.0 123.7

1 40

71.0 16.2

110 101

162.3 50.2

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

120.7

137.8

0.0

95.0

127.3

JO Part Non-JO Part

3 0

120.7 0.0

2 3

344.5 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 95.0

5 4

210.2 23.8

108.9

102.5

103.1

15.9

170

84.2

32 7

111.5 97.0

15 39

204.9 63.1

35 3

101.4 123.7

1 38

71.0 14.5

83 87

123.6 46.7

202.4

235.1

952.0

0.0

232.8

12 5

211.9 179.6

9 4

338.2 3.0

1 0

952.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 0.0

22 10

297.2 91.0

209.8

0.0

81.3

5.1

69.5

8 0

209.8 0.0

0 11

0.0 0.0

8 0

81.3 0.0

0 7

0.0 5.1

16 18

145.5 2.0

209.8

0.0

81.3

5.1

69.5

8 0

209.8 0.0

0 11

0.0 0.0

8 0

81.3 0.0

0 7

0.0 5.1

16 18

145.5 2.0

0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

145.2

120.0

118.9

15.7

247

JO Part Non-JO Part MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25): JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES:

ROBBERY 1: (160.15) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER B FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part ROBBERY 2: (160.10) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER C FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

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

106.3

-75Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION VI. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Exhibit 6A presents the sentences given in Supreme Court, by borough, with Table 6a providing the detailed distribution for each conviction-charge category. A total of 158 sentences in the Supreme Court in 1998 were for juvenile offenders, roughly half as many sentences for juvenile offenders as there were in 1997. The number of sentences for juveniles in Supreme Court decreased in every borough with the smallest decrease in the Bronx (15%). The volume of sentences for JO cases in Queens in 1998 was only 40 percent of the 1997 volume. In Brooklyn, the 1998 volume was one third of the 1997 figure, while only a fifth as many juveniles were sentenced in Manhattan in 1998 as in 1997. Overall, nearly half (45%) of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 1998 were custodial. This includes either imprisonment only (39%) or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;splitâ&#x20AC;? sentence including both imprisonment and probation (6%). The proportion of sentences to imprisonment only was the same as it was in the previous reporting period while the proportion of split sentences was lower than in 1997 (13%) or 1996 (9%). Taken together, sentences for juveniles in 1998 were less likely to include a period of incarceration (45%, down from 52% in 1997, and from 55% in 1996). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles receive were large. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn were again more likely to be incarcerative (72%), than were sentences in other boroughs. Probation with no incarceration was most common in Queens (68%), followed by the Bronx (60%). As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of a custodial sanction increased for the more serious conviction charges: Almost half of the sentences for juveniles convicted of a B felony included some form of imprisonment, as compared to less than one of every three of the sentences for juveniles convicted of a C felony. Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given to juvenile offenders in 1998 in the JO Parts to those given to juvenile offenders in non-JO Parts, citywide, for different conviction-charge classes. Differences in sentence outcomes are apparent for both the B- and C-felony categories. For example, more than half of the sentences for juveniles convicted of B felonies who were sentenced in JO Parts included imprisonment, compared to only a third of sentences for comparable cases in the non-JO Parts. This finding is consistent with the figures for the previous reporting period but should be viewed with caution because the borough distribution of the sentences in the JO Parts is so different from the borough distribution of those in the non-JO Parts. The comparison actually reflects all of the Queens juveniles and two thirds of the Bronx juveniles sentenced in the non-JO Parts, while the other boroughs contribute the cases in the JO Parts. Exhibit 6B.2 presents similar information without regard to charge for each borough and citywide. Citywide, the types of sentences given in 1998 in JO Parts and non-JO Parts showed some differences. Imprisonment without probation was far more common among the juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts (50%) than among those sentenced in the non-JO Parts (30%), as in

-76Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

1997. Split sentences were also more frequent in the JO Parts (11%) than in the non-JO Parts (3%). The converse was true for 1997. Considered together, the proportion of incarcerative sentences for juveniles was almost twice as high in the JO- than the non-JO Parts, while the difference was less than six percentage points in 1997. However, as mentioned above, these differences seem to be attributable to differences in the use of JO Parts in the boroughs, rather than to the sentencing tendencies of specialized court parts for juveniles. Juveniles in Brooklyn and Manhattan are far more likely to be indicted and then assigned to a JO Part than are juveniles in Queens or the Bronx, so the sentencing patterns in JO Parts are more likely to reflect the patterns characteristic of Brooklyn and Manhattan than those of the other boroughs. In 1998, nine of every ten juvenile sentences in a non-JO Part are in the Bronx or Queens. The previous report presented comparisons of the types of sentences juveniles receive in JO- versus non-JO Parts within the borough of arrest for the Bronx and Brooklyn because these were the only boroughs with substantial numbers of sentences for juveniles in both types of court parts in 1997. The volume of sentenced juveniles is so much lower in 1998 that the comparison can only be conducted for the Bronx. In the Bronx, sentences in the non-JO Parts are about half as likely to include imprisonment, as are sentences in the JO Parts. Here, however, since the non-JO Part sentences are associated with the cases brought to the upper court by SCI and the JO Part sentences are associated with the indicted cases, it is not clear whether the observed difference in the pattern of sentences is due to the type of accusatory instrument per se, or to the opportunity to plead guilty to a reduced charge that is afforded by the use of an SCI, or to the actual type of court part. Details regarding sentences given for specific conviction charges, by borough and court part is contained in Table 6b. Similarly, Exhibit 6C.1 displays the conditions of sentence granted in the JO Parts as compared to the non-JO Parts citywide, for different conviction-charge classes. Here, juveniles sentenced in the JO-Parts are almost as likely to receive YO status as are their counterparts who are sentenced in non-JO Parts (80% versus 86%). Again, borough comparisons must be restricted to the Bronx because this is the only borough with sufficient numbers of sentences for juveniles in both the JO- and non-JO Parts. In the Bronx, the non-JO Parts were more likely to grant YO status than were the JO Parts, consistent with the findings reported for 1997. Exhibits 6D and 6E give the mean number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 1998 for each of the conviction-charge classes, separately by release status at conviction. The decline in the volume of sentences for juveniles is not attributable to citywide changes in length of case processing. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 1998 appeared a mean of thirteen times in Supreme Court, and a mean of 203 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. While the mean number of appearances is comparable to the 1997 figure, the mean number of days is more than a month shorter than for 1997. (The 1997 figures revealed no change in the duration of case processing citywide when compared to the 1996 figures). In 1998, it took longer for sentences at the B-felony level (in terms of number of appearances (13) than for sentences for C felonies (11 appearances) but the mean number of days was longer for sentences at the C-felony level (259 days) compared to 192 days for B felony sentences. It is difficult to

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

summarize length of case (either by mean number of appearances or mean number of days) by release status at conviction and conviction charge because of the small numbers of cases in many categories. Even for defendants convicted of first degree robbery there are not ten or more juveniles in each release status category. The borough differences in length of case, even within charge and release status, however, are far more striking than the citywide differences. Queens defendants reached sentencing much more quickly (5.7 appearances, 66 days) than did the defendants in other boroughs. It took a mean of ten appearances (177 days) in the Bronx, a mean of 17 appearances (252 days) in Brooklyn and 28 appearances (508 days) in Manhattan. The sequence of the boroughs in speed of case processing is similar to the pattern shown in 1997, and the figures for Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens are roughly within one appearance and one month of the 1997 figures, despite the decline in volume. In Manhattan, however, the extremely low volume of juvenile cases sentenced in 1998 coincides with large increases in length of case processing. The mean number of appearances in Supreme Court to sentencing increased by seven appearances and the mean number of days increased by more than three months. Exhibits 6F and 6G, and the associated Tables 6f and 6g, present similar information, comparing cases sentenced in the JO Parts to those sentenced elsewhere. Among juveniles sentenced at the B- or C-felony level, the mean number of appearances and mean number of days is much higher for those sentenced in the JO Parts than for those sentenced in other parts. This is consistent with the findings reported for previous periods. For those sentenced for B felonies, it took 19 appearances and 320 days in the JO Parts and 9 appearances and 115 days in the non-JO Parts. For those sentenced for C felonies, it took 22 appearances and 587 days in the JO Parts, compared to barely five appearances and only 62 days in the non-JO Parts. Longer elapsed time between conviction and sentence for juveniles in the JO Parts may reflect greater participation of juveniles in those parts in alternatives-to-incarceration (ATI) programs. Sentences are deferred while the court monitors the juvenileâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the program to assess the likelihood of success if sentenced to probation. It is tempting to attribute borough differences in elapsed time to the differential use of SCIs in the boroughs. It is possible that the negotiations that precede the decision to bring a case to the upper court by SCI rather than by indictment include discussions of likely sentencing options and may lengthen Criminal Court processing. However, data presented earlier on the mean number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court do not show higher means in the boroughs that make frequent use of SCIs. Unfortunately, the data on length of case in Criminal Court combine all JO cases, regardless of the disposition, and are not restricted to cases that reach the upper court. The speed of case processing in Supreme Court in Queens and the Bronx, especially in the non-JO Parts where the SCI cases appear, may reflect the use of SCIs in these boroughs. However, in Brooklyn, where SCIs are not common, the eight juvenile cases

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

sentenced on B-felony charges in the non-JO Parts took longer than those sentenced than in the JO Parts (a mean of 25 appearances versus 16 appearances). It is beyond the scope of this report to do more than speculate about the reasons for these observed differences. It may involve the types of cases prosecuted in the JO- versus the non-JO Parts, or the way that some specialized court parts process some kinds of special cases, or the explanation may be borough- or courtspecific.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=36)

Percentage

55.6

16.7

25.0

2.8

Bronx (N=68)

Imprisonment

33.8

4.4

60.3

1.5

Manhattan (N=16)

50.0

Sentence Imp. and Imprisonment

Queens (N=38)

Probation

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

26.3

2.6

68.4

2.6

Other

Citywide (N=158)

38.6

6.3

53.2

1.9

-79-

-80Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Supreme Court Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

TOTAL A FELONIES:

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal

0 0 0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25)

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

6.3%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

6.3%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.6%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.6%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal

0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

94.4%

82.4%

68.8%

84.2%

133

84.2%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

20 5 8 1

58.8% 14.7% 23.5% 2.9% 100.0%

21 2 33 0

37.5% 3.6% 58.9% 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 5 0

54.5% 0.0% 45.5% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 23 0

25.0% 3.1% 71.9% 0.0% 100.0%

55 8 69 1

41.4% 6.0% 51.9% 0.8% 100.0%

0.0%

2.6%

3.2%

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4 0 1

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0%

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

0 0 0

2.8%

4.4%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

ROBBERY 1: (160.15)

69.4%

70.6%

62.5%

78.9%

113

71.5%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

12 5 7 1

48.0% 20.0% 28.0% 4.0% 100.0%

16 2 30 0

33.3% 4.2% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 5 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 21 0

26.7% 3.3% 70.0% 0.0% 100.0%

41 8 63 1

36.3% 7.1% 55.8% 0.9% 100.0%

OTHER B FELONIES

22.2%

7.4%

6.3%

2.6%

9.5%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

7 0 1 0

87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 5 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

TOTAL C FELONIES:

5.6%

17.6%

25.0%

15.8%

15.2%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1 8 1

16.7% 8.3% 66.7% 8.3% 100.0%

1 0 3 0

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 1

33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

5 2 15 2

20.8% 8.3% 62.5% 8.3% 100.0%

ROBBERY 2: (160.10)

5.6%

17.6%

25.0%

15.8%

15.2%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 1 8 1

16.7% 8.3% 66.7% 8.3% 100.0%

1 0 3 0

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 1

33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

5 2 15 2

20.8% 8.3% 62.5% 8.3% 100.0%

0.0%

Other C FELONIES Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal TOTAL

0 0 0 0 36

0 0 0 0 100.0%

158

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3.9

62.3

1.3

Probation

(N=133)

Non-JO Part

32.5

(N=1)

JO Part

8.9

37.5

Total B Felonies

Non-JO Part

53.6

Total A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Imprisonment

Sentence Imp. and Probation

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

55.6

(N=24)

66.7

13.3

Non-JO Part

20.0

Total C Felonies

JO Part

22.2 22.2

Other

Exhibit 6B.1 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-81-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=8)

(N=28)

75.0

12.5

JO Part

Brooklyn

50.0

21.4

28.6

Percentage

(N=24)

JO Part

25.0

4.5

(N=44)

(N=14)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

50.0

Sentence Imp. and Imprisonment

68.2

2.3

Non JO Part

Bronx

50.0

4.2

45.8

Imprisonment

(N=0)

JO Part

26.3

2.6

68.4

2.6

Other

(N=38)

Non JO Part

Queens

Probation

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6B.2 Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Borough:

30.4

3.3

63.0

(N=92)

Non JO Part (N=66)

JO Part

Citywide

50.0

10.6

39.4

3.3

-82-

-83Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

6.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.6%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0%

6.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

94.4%

82.4%

68.8%

14 5 7 0 26

53.8% 19.2% 26.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 10 0 21

52.4% 0.0% 47.6% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 4 0 9

55.6% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

6 0 1 1 8

75.0% 0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0%

10 2 23 0 35

28.6% 5.7% 65.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 23 0 32

2.8%

4.4%

0.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1

Non-JO Part:

84.2%

133

84.2%

30 5 21 0 56

53.6% 8.9% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%

25.0% 3.1% 71.9% 0.0% 100.0%

25 3 48 1 77

32.5% 3.9% 62.3% 1.3% 100.0%

2.6%

3.2%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

78.9%

113

71.5%

20 5 19 0 44

45.5% 11.4% 43.2% 0.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

ROBBERY 1: (160.15)

69.4%

70.6%

62.5%

8 5 6 0 19

42.1% 26.3% 31.6% 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 9 0 17

47.1% 0.0% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 4 0 8

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

-84Table 6b (continued) Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES ROBBERY 1: (160.15)--Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

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

4 0 1 1 6

66.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

8 2 21 0 31

25.8% 6.5% 67.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 1 0 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

8 1 21 0 30

26.7% 3.3% 70.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 3 44 1 69

30.4% 4.3% 63.8% 1.4% 100.0%

OTHER B FELONIES

22.2%

7.4%

6.3%

2.6%

9.5%

5 0 1 0 6

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

8 0 2 0 10

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL C FELONIES:

5.6%

17.6%

0 1 1 0 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 1 0 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 0 4

1 0 7 1 9

11.1% 0.0% 77.8% 11.1% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal Non-JO Part: 0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

25.0%

15.8%

15.2%

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 2 5 0 9

22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0

ROBBERY 2: (160.10)

5.6%

17.6%

0 1 1 0 2

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 1 0 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 3 0 4

1 0 7 1 9

11.1% 0.0% 77.8% 11.1% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

2 0 3 1 6

33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

3 0 10 2 15

20.0% 0.0% 66.7% 13.3% 100.0%

25.0%

15.8%

15.2%

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

2 2 5 0 9

22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 0.0% 100.0%

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

0 0 0 0

OTHER C FELONIES

0.0%

2 0 3 1 6

33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0%

3 0 10 2 15

20.0% 0.0% 66.7% 13.3% 100.0%

0.0%

JO Part: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

0 0 0 0

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

100.0%

158

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

21.4 15.6

(N=133)

Non-JO Part

79.6

(N=1)

JO Part

50.7

78.6

84.4

Total B Felonies

Non-JO Part

100.0

Not Youthful Offender

Total A Felonies

JO Part

Percent

Youthful Offender

1998 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

(N=24)

6.7

Non-JO Part

89.2

93.3

Total C Felonies

JO Part

73.2

100.0

Exhibit 6C.1 Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-85-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=8)

(N=28)

37.5

62.5

JO Part

Brooklyn

89.3

10.7

Percentage

(N=24)

JO Part

95.5

(N=44)

Non JO Part

Bronx

75.0

25.0

4.5

(N=14)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

71.4

28.6

50.0

(N=0)

JO Part

(N=38)

Non JO Part

Queens

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

86.8

13.2

80.3

19.7

(N=66)

JO Part

(N=92)

Non JO Part

Citywide

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

85.9

14.1

-86-

-87Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N % 0

0.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0

0.0%

Queens %

6.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 1

0.6%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 1 1

Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

Non-JO Part:

0.0%

6.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0 0

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

0 1 1

0 0

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

94.4%

82.4%

68.8%

23 3 26

88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

15 6 21

71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

6 3 9

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

0 0

3 5 8

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

34 1 35

97.1% 2.9% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

27 5 32

2.8%

4.4%

0.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

1 0 1

84.2%

133

84.2%

44 12 56

78.6% 21.4% 100.0%

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

65 12 77

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

2.6%

3.2%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

78.9%

113

71.5%

37 7 44

84.1% 15.9% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25) JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal ROBBERY 1: (160.15)

0 0 25

69.4%

70.6%

62.5%

18 1 19

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

13 4 17

76.5% 23.5% 100.0%

6 2 8

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

0 0

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

-88Table 6c (continued) Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES ROBBERY 1: (160.15)--Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

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

2 4 6

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

30 1 31

96.8% 3.2% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

25 5 30

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

58 11 69

84.1% 15.9% 100.0%

22.2%

7.4%

6.3%

2.6%

9.5%

5 1 6

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

1 2 3

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

6 4 10

60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

1 1 2

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

5.6%

17.6%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 4

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

0 0

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal TOTAL C FELONIES:

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 5

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

25.0%

15.8%

15.2%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

9 0 9

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10)

0 0

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1 15

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

15.8%

15.2%

9 0 9

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5.6%

17.6%

25.0%

2 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

8 1 9

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

0 0

0.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal Non-JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal OTHER C FELONIES

0 0 0

0.0%

6 0 6

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 1 15

93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

0.0%

JO Part: Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender Subtotal

0 0

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

100.0%

158

100.0%

11.5

(N=124)

Total B Felonies

14.6

Mean Number of Appearances

13.7 11.6

(N=24)

Total C Felonies

4.3

Remand

13.9

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 6D Mean Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-89-

-90Table 6d Mean Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

10.0

0.0

10.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0

10.0

0.0

10.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

18.1

11.1

27.6

6.0

124

13.1

7 7 3 16

23.0 23.3 20.3 13.2

26 6 2 19

9.8 16.7 6.0 11.7

2 1 0 7

34.0 13.0 0.0 27.9

11 8 1 8

4.4 5.8 17.0 7.1

46 22 6 50

11.5 14.6 15.0 13.7

7.0

6.3

0.0

7.0

6.6

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0

0 0 1 2

0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 1 3

0.0 7.0 3.0 7.7

18.0

11.0

27.6

6.1

107

13.0

6 5 3 11

24.2 17.0 20.3 14.5

24 6 1 15

10.0 16.7 9.0 10.4

2 1 0 7

34.0 13.0 0.0 27.9

11 6 1 8

4.4 6.0 17.0 7.1

43 18 5 41

11.7 13.0 17.4 13.8

19.9

16.0

0.0

3.0

17.2

1 2 0 4

16.0 39.0 0.0 11.3

2 0 0 2

7.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

3 3 0 6

10.0 27.0 0.0 15.8

6.0

7.7

33.3

4.5

11.0

1 0 0 1

8.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

8 0 1 3

8.8 0.0 3.0 6.3

2 0 0 2

31.0 0.0 0.0 35.5

2 3 0 1

5.5 4.3 0.0 3.0

13 3 1 7

11.6 4.3 3.0 13.9

6.0

7.7

33.3

4.5

11.0

1 0 0 1

8.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

8 0 1 3

8.8 0.0 3.0 6.3

2 0 0 2

31.0 0.0 0.0 35.5

2 3 0 1

5.5 4.3 0.0 3.0

13 3 1 7

11.6 4.3 3.0 13.9

0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17.4

10.5

27.9

5.7

149

12.8

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each juvenile felony offense. The means in bold are the means each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * Excludes 9 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

211.2

(N=24)

Total C Felonies

54.3

(N=123)

131.3

166.4

248.8

Total B Felonies

223.9

Mean Number of Days

Remand

396.7

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

500

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6E Mean Number Days From First Supreme court Appearance Through Sentence By Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-91-

-92Table 6e Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Supreme Court Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

205.0

0.0

205.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 205.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 205.0

MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25):

0.0

205.0

0.0

205.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 205.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 205.0

232.2

192.1

413.2

64.3

123

191.7

7 7 3 16

431.4 224.3 169.0 160.3

26 6 2 18

156.3 451.8 38.0 174.2

2 1 0 7

1007.5 137.0 0.0 282.0

11 8 1 8

55.7 63.4 205.0 59.4

46 22 6 49

211.2 223.9 131.3 166.4

72.0

48.3

0.0

134.0

70.2

0 0 0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 72.0

0 0 1 2

0.0 0.0 13.0 66.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 134.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 1 3

0.0 134.0 13.0 68.0

227.1

195.4

413.2

62.5

106

190.8

6 5 3 11

347.2 217.6 169.0 181.7

24 6 1 14

163.9 451.8 63.0 149.1

2 1 0 7

1007.5 137.0 0.0 282.9

11 6 1 8

55.7 55.2 205.0 59.4

43 18 5 40

201.0 237.1 155.0 163.6

273.3

262.0

0.0

42.0

250.3

1 2 0 4

937.0 241.0 0.0 123.5

2 0 0 2

66.0 0.0 0.0 458.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 1 0 0

0.0 42.0 0.0 0.0

3 3 0 6

356.3 174.7 0.0 235.0

578.5

112.1

820.0

72.0

258.9

1 0 0 1

178.0 0.0 0.0 979.0

8 0 1 3

142.6 0.0 40.0 54.7

2 0 0 2

831.5 0.0 0.0 808.5

2 3 0 1

126.0 54.3 0.0 17.0

13 3 1 7

248.8 54.3 40.0 396.7

578.5

112.1

820.0

72.0

258.9

1 0 0 1

178.0 0.0 0.0 979.0

8 0 1 3

142.6 0.0 40.0 54.7

2 0 0 2

831.5 0.0 0.0 808.5

2 3 0 1

126.0 54.3 0.0 17.0

13 3 1 7

248.8 54.3 40.0 396.7

0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

252.0

177.1

507.8

65.6

148

202.7

(N=133)

Total B Felonies

Mean Number of Appearances

8.7

21.6

(N=24)

Total C Felonies

4.7

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6F Mean Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-93-

-94-

Table 6f Mean Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

10.0

0.0

10.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

10.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

10.0 0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

10.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

10.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

10.0 0.0

18.2

11.5

27.0

5.4

133

13.0

JO Part Non-JO Part

26 8

16.0 25.4

21 35

19.9 6.5

9 2

25.2 35.0

0 32

0.0 5.4

56 77

19.0 8.7

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

7.0

6.3

0.0

7.0

6.6

JO Part Non-JO Part

1 0

7.0 0.0

1 2

13.0 3.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 7.0

2 3

10.0 4.3

18.0

11.1

27.6

5.4

113

12.6

19 6

15.4 26.3

17 31

19.2 6.6

8 2

25.7 35.0

0 30

0.0 5.4

44 69

18.8 8.6

20.4

18.4

21.0

3.0

18.6

6 2

19.7 22.5

3 2

26.0 7.0

1 0

21.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 3.0

10 5

21.7 12.4

6.0

7.7

33.3

4.5

11.0

2 0

6.0 0.0

3 9

16.3 4.8

4 0

33.3 0.0

0 6

0.0 4.5

9 15

21.6 4.7

6.0

7.7

33.3

4.5

11.0

2 0

6.0 0.0

3 9

16.3 4.8

4 0

33.3 0.0

0 6

0.0 4.5

9 15

21.6 4.7

0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

17.6

10.8

27.5

5.2

158

12.7

JO Part Non-JO Part MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25): JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES:

ROBBERY 1: (160.15) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER B FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part ROBBERY 2: (160.10) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER C FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each juvenile felony offense. The means in bold are the means each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

Total C Felonies (N=24)

62.2

(N=133)

115

586.8

Total B Felonies

320.3

Mean Number of Days

NOTE: The A Felony category is not displayed because only one case was disposed at the A-felony level during the reporting period.

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1998 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 6G Mean Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appeaerance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide:

-95-

-96-

Table 6g Mean Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge by Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Mean

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Mean N Mean

Queens Mean

CITYWIDE N Mean

0.0

205.0

0.0

205.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

205.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

205.0 0.0

0.0

205.0

0.0

205.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

205.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

1 0

205.0 0.0

235.6

212.5

462.2

56.3

133

201.5

JO Part Non-JO Part

26 8

186.1 396.8

21 35

399.8 100.1

9 2

522.8 189.5

0 32

0.0 56.3

56 77

320.3 115.0

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

72.0

48.3

0.0

134.0

322.1

JO Part Non-JO Part

1 0

72.0 0.0

1 2

117.0 14.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 134.0

2 3

392.9 152.2

227.1

198.7

413.2

54.1

113

185.6

19 6

161.2 435.8

17 31

364.4 107.8

8 2

469.1 189.5

0 30

0.0 54.1

44 69

295.7 115.4

282.9

443.4

952.0

42.0

364.9

6 2

284.0 279.5

3 2

695.0 66.0

1 0

952.0 0.0

0 1

0.0 42.0

10 5

474.1 146.6

578.5

112.1

820.0

72.0

258.9

2 0

578.5 0.0

3 9

281.3 55.7

4 0

0.0 820.0

0 6

0.0 72.0

9 15

586.8 62.2

578.5

112.1

820.0

72.0

258.9

2 0

578.5 0.0

3 9

281.3 55.7

4 0

0.0 820.0

0 6

0.0 72.0

9 15

586.8 62.2

0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

0 0

0.0 0.0

254.7

194.8

535.6

58.7

158

JO Part Non-JO Part MURDER 2 (125.25) and KIDNAPPING 1 (135.25): JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES:

ROBBERY 1: (160.15) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER B FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part ROBBERY 2: (160.10) JO Part Non-JO Part OTHER C FELONIES JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each juvenile felony offense. The means in bold are the means each charge category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide.

210.2

-97Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1998 (Second half of FY 1998 through First half of FY 1999; January - December, 1998)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 386 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, an increase of more than twenty percent from the previous reporting period and of thirteen percent from 1996. As shown in Exhibit 7A, five percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 1998. This is lower than the rate in 1997 and 1995 but close to the rate in 1996 when only four percent of released juveniles missed at least one pretrial hearing in Criminal Court. The failureto-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 1998 for juveniles arraigned in 1998 and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 1998. Table 7a presents the failure-to-appear (FTA) rate18 by arraignment release status by borough for cases arraigned in Criminal Court. The FTA rate for those released on recognizance at arraignment was lower in 1998 (4.1%) than in previous years (1997: 7.4%, 1996: 6.7% and 1995: 7.9%). While twelve percent of the juveniles released on bail at arraignment failed to appear, the highest rate reported in this series, this finding should be viewed cautiously since only so few defendants (24) secure release on bail at Criminal Court arraignment. The FTA rate was particularly low in Brooklyn where only one of the 126 defendants who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d and none of the three who posted bail at arraignment missed a court appearance. Exhibit 7B presents FTA rates in Supreme Court for juveniles who were released at the first Supreme Court appearance and Table 7b presents the Supreme Court FTA data by release status and borough. The FTA rate in Supreme Court (15.5%)19 was higher than the Criminal Court FTA rate, as it was in previous reporting periods. This reflects FTA for those who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (19%, compared to 4% in Criminal Court) but not those released on bail (7%, compared to 12% in Criminal Court). The combined FTA rate in Supreme Court for juveniles released at Criminal Court arraignment on bail or on ROR was higher than the ten percent reported for 1997 and 1995 and higher even than the rate in 1996 (14.8%). 18

The FTA rate presented here is a case-based, not an appearance-based, rate. The number of cases in which a warrant was issued for failure to appear during the reporting period was divided by the total number of cases. For an appearance-based rate, the number of missed appearances would be divided by the total number of appearances scheduled during the reporting period. 19

The Supreme Court FTA data discussed here does not include failure to appear at the first Supreme Court appearance because the data were collected and reported by release status at the first appearance and the release status field is blank when a warrant is ordered.

-98-

Exhibit 7A Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court For Defendants Released at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide: 1998 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 95.3% Yes 4.7%

(N=386)

0 3

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

344

0 3

0 212

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

61.6%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.9%

0.8% 99.2% 100.0%

36.6%

239

1 14

1 105

106

0 7

5 106

111

100.0%

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

6.3%

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

44.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.9%

4.5% 95.5% 100.0%

46.4%

208

1 1

6 112

118

1 2

6 79

100.0%

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1.0%

5.1% 94.9% 100.0%

56.7%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

1.4%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

40.9%

126

0 4

0 71

2 9

3 37

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56.3%

18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

8.7%

7.5% 92.5% 100.0%

31.7%

Queens %

917

2 22

7 500

507

3 21

15 347

362

100.0%

8.3% 91.7% 100.0%

* The total excludes 6 juveniles citywide for whom the release status set at Criminal Court arraignment was not available.

2.6%

1.4% 98.6% 100.0%

55.3%

12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

2.6%

4.1% 95.9% 100.0%

39.5%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL*

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

212

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

1 125

126

Brooklyn N %

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

ROR:

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court by Criminal Court Arraignment Release Status and Borough for 1998 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

Table 7a

-99-

-100-

Exhibit 7B Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court For Defendants Released at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide: 1998 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

No 84.5%

Yes 15.5%

(N=148)

3 9

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

2 7

1 15

2 32

100.0%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

9.8%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

17.4%

5.9% 94.1% 100.0%

37.0%

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

13.0%

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

22.8%

2 3

1 25

2 11

0 7

9 37

100.0%

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

5.2%

3.8% 96.2% 100.0%

26.8%

15.4% 84.6% 100.0%

13.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.2%

19.6% 80.4% 100.0%

47.4%

0 2

7 24

3 17

0 6

6 17

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.4%

22.6% 77.4% 100.0%

37.8%

15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

24.4%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.3%

26.1% 73.9% 100.0%

28.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 5

0 9

1 14

0 16

2 15

100.0%

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

12.3%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13.8%

6.7% 93.3% 100.0%

23.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

24.6%

11.8% 88.2% 100.0%

26.2%

Queens N %

336

7 17

9 73

8 74

3 38

20 87

107

100.0%

29.2% 70.8% 100.0%

7.1%

11.0% 89.0% 100.0%

24.4%

9.8% 90.2% 100.0%

24.4%

7.3% 92.7% 100.0%

12.2%

18.7% 81.3% 100.0%

31.8%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

RELEASE STATUS MISSING:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

BAIL SET AND MADE:

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE:

3 18

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

ROR:

RELEASE STATUS

Brooklyn N %

Failure To Appear as Scheduled in Supreme Court by Release Status at the First Supreme Court Appearance and Borough for 1998 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-101-

-102-

APPENDIX A JUVENILE OFFENSES

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

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

Felony Class B A B C B C A B C D B A A B B B C B

Defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Age 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15

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