Juveniles Report 99 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 1999

March 2001  2001 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 .......................................... Exhibit 2E: Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough........................................................................................................................ Table 2e: Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category 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 Charge Severity Citywide........ Table 3b: Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough .......................

32 34 35 36 37 38

30 31

Exhibit 3C: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide .......................................................................................................................... Table 3c: Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough...................................................................................................................... Exhibit 3D: Median Number of Days From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide .......................................................................................................................... Table 3d: Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough......................................................................................................................

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 First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough .................. Table 4c: Release Status by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough .... Exhibit 4D: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance Citywide ............................................................................ Table 4d: Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough ........................................................................

43 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

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

55 59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68

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

72 73 74 75 76 77 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

90 91

92 93

Table 6f: Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough ............ 94 Exhibit 6G: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity Citywide ................ 95 Table 6g: Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough........................... 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, 1999 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 "waiver-up" 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 the Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City. The current report covers January through December 1999 (the second half of fiscal year 1999 and the first half of fiscal year 2000). 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 release-status 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; 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.

-2Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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 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. 1

CJA does not ordinarily interview defendants who are arrested solely on bench warrants, or charged with non-criminal 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

The seventeen serious offenses include two charges added to the list as of November 1, 1998: 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree and 265.03, possession of a weapon 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, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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-, C- or D-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 that 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 1999 calendar year, reflecting activity which occurred from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999. 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.

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

-4Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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 61 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 352, only 113 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 arraignment section, we present defendants’ release status at the conclusion of the arraignment hearing; the defendants whose cases were terminated at that point through a dismissal typically have no release status and are not included in the information.5 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. 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.

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.

-5Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

It is also important to note that the unit of analysis varies at different stages of processing. Although we refer to â&#x20AC;&#x153;casesâ&#x20AC;? 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 2401 arrests for JO offenses from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999. About a third of these arrests were filed in adult court â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1571 cases (65%) 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.

-6Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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

Retention in System (% of total volume) Out

Retained

Release Decision Released

Detained

Arrests

2401

1571 (65%)

830 (35%)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

CC Arraignments

834

8 (1%)

826 (99%)

306 (37%)7

CC Dispositions

871

472 (54%)

399 (46%)

data not available

SC 1st Appearances

372

14 (4%)

358 (96%)

137 (41%)

SC Dispositions

338

56 (17%)

282 (83%)

157 (56%)

517 (63%) data not available

200 (59%)

123 (44%)

The base for the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment is 823 because release status was missing for six juveniles, and was not relevant for the five juveniles whose cases were dismissed.

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 337 cases, not 358. 9

The base for the release decision at Supreme Court disposition is 280 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, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION I. ARREST Overall, there were 2401 arrests for JO offenses in 1999. This is very similar to the 2394 arrests reported in 1998. 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 nearly three quarters of the juvenile arrests. As has been found in previous reporting periods, few arrests were for any A felony. In 1999, 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 fourteen and fifteen can be held criminally responsible for possession of a weapon in the second degree (265.03, subsection 4) or third degree (265.02), if it occurred on school grounds, and they can therefore be prosecuted in adult court for these charges. Since the location of the offense is not available from the CJA database, all of the 56 arrests of juveniles aged fourteen and fifteen charged with 265.03 and all of the 141 arrests of similarly-aged juveniles charged with 265.02 have been included in this report as juvenile offender arrests. These two weapon offenses account for eight percent of the juvenile arrests in 1999. Only five juveniles were charged at arrest with 265.03 in November or December of 1998, and no juveniles were charged with 265.02.10 As Exhibit 1A.2 shows, arrest offense type varies somewhat across the boroughs. While second degree robbery was the most frequent, the proportion this charge represented of all JO arrests was lowest in Staten Island (34%), followed by the Bronx (44%) and Brooklyn (46%) and higher in Manhattan (51%) and Queens (52%). The two weapon charges for which juveniles have now become eligible for prosecution in the adult court accounted for a quarter of the Staten Island JO arrests and eleven percent of the JO arrests in Brooklyn, but only eight percent of those in the Bronx and five percent in Manhattan and Queens. As in previous reports, the proportion of murder cases remained under two percent in each borough, ranging from no juveniles in Staten Island and two and three in Queens and Manhattan, respectively, to seven juveniles in the Bronx (1.4%) and nine (1.1%) in Brooklyn. If JO arrests with attempted murder charges are considered, the borough differences are even wider. The Bronx shows twice as many juveniles charged with attempted murder (14) as the next closest borough (Queens, with 7 arrests), and accounts for more than half the citywide volume. However, taken together, murder and attempted murder charges account for two percent of the juvenile offender arrests in 1999. Detailed distributions of all JO charges for each borough are presented in Table 1a. Exhibit 1B shows that nearly six of every ten arrested in JO cases were fifteen years old at the time of arrest. This varied somewhat by borough, ranging between 53 percent in the Bronx to 66 percent in Staten Island and Manhattan. There were four 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 generally account for more JO arrests than do younger 10

For review purposes, and because many specific penal law charges frequently contain very few cases, general felony-class groups were created ("other A," "other B" and “other C and D”). 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. All C- and D-felony JO charges except second degree robbery comprise the “other C and D” group.

-8Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

arrestees. In previous reports, the fifteen-year-olds seemed to be more heavily concentrated in the Aor B-felony arrest charge levels than at the C-felony level, but this is less apparent in 1999, perhaps because of the new inclusion of juveniles charged with second or third degree weapon possession. Not surprisingly, most arrestees for JO offenses were male (85%, comparable to the 86% to 88% in previous reports), as shown in Exhibit 1C. Borough differences in the proportion of arrestees who were male were very small, with only a four percentage-point spread across the boroughs. As shown in Table 1c, the female arrestees tended to concentrate in the less severe felony-offense categories. Citywide, one of the juveniles with A-felony arrest charges was female (5%), compared to twelve percent of those with B-felony arrest charges, and 16 percent of the C- or D-felony arrests. JO arrestees were predominately males, fifteen years old, and arrested for a robbery charge. As Exhibit 1D indicates, nearly two thirds of the 1999 JO arrests were not docketed.11 The proportion prosecuted in 1999 (35%) is slightly lower than the proportion reported for 1998 when prosecutors filed a case in adult court for 38 percent of the JO arrests. 11

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: 1999 JO Arrests

Murder 2 0.9% Other* 21.1%

Robbery 1 25.2%

Assault 1 3.8%

Att. Murder 2 1.1%

Robbery 2 47.9%

(N=2,401)

* Includes other A, B, C, and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=851)

Percentage

0.2 1.1

25.6

46.5

4.3

22.2

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=409)

1.0 0.7

32.5

50.9

2.7

12.2

1.2 0.3

22.2

52.2

3.6

20.5

Assault 1

Queens (N=586)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=494)

2.8 1.4

22.1

44.1

4.5

25.1

Att. Murder 2

1999 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1A.2 Arrest Charge By Borough:

Staten Is. (N=61)

Other*

26.2

34.4

39.3

-10-

851

396 47 33 60

536

2 218 37 1 14 15 1 13 5 0

306

9 0 0

100.0%

73.9% 8.8% 6.2% 11.2% 100.0%

63.0%

0.7% 71.2% 12.1% 0.3% 4.6% 4.9% 0.3% 4.2% 1.6% 0.0% 100.0%

36.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.1%

Brooklyn N %

494

218 51 7 32

308

14 109 22 0 13 10 1 6 4 0

179

7 0 0

100.0%

70.8% 16.6% 2.3% 10.4% 100.0%

62.3%

7.8% 60.9% 12.3% 0.0% 7.3% 5.6% 0.6% 3.4% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%

36.2%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.4%

Bronx N %

409

208 18 9 12

247

4 133 11 0 2 6 0 1 2 0

159

3 0 0

100.0%

84.2% 7.3% 3.6% 4.9% 100.0%

60.4%

2.5% 83.6% 6.9% 0.0% 1.3% 3.8% 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

38.9%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.7%

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

2 0 0

586

306 73 6 23

408

7 130 21 0 2 9 0 5 2 0

100.0%

75.0% 17.9% 1.5% 5.6% 100.0%

69.6%

4.0% 73.9% 11.9% 0.0% 1.1% 5.1% 0.0% 2.8% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0%

30.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.3%

Queens %

176

21 7 1 14

0 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0

27 606 91 1 31 41 2 25 14 0

838

21 0 0

100.0% 2401

48.8% 1149 16.3% 196 2.3% 56 32.6% 141 100.0%

100.0%

74.5% 12.7% 3.6% 9.1% 100.0%

64.2%

3.2% 72.3% 10.9% 0.1% 3.7% 4.9% 0.2% 3.0% 1.7% 0.0% 100.0%

34.9%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

CITYWIDE % N

70.5% 1542

0.0% 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

29.5%

0.0%

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) Poss. Weapon 3: (265.02) Subtotal

TOTAL C OR D 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 1999 JO Arrests

Table 1a

-11-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=850)

Percentage

0.4

40.6

59.1

Bronx (N=493)

0.2

46.9

52.9

Manhattan (N=409)

34.2

65.8

Queens (N=585)

Age at Arrest 13 14 15

1999 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1B Age by Borough:

40.5

59.5

Staten Is. (N=61)

34.4

65.6

Citywide (N=2398)

0.2

40.6

59.2

-12-

-13Table 1b Age by Arrest Charge by Borough For 1999 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: 13 14 15 Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) 13 14 15 Subtotal OTHER C OR D FELONIES 13 14 15 Subtotal TOTAL *

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

1.1%

1.2%

0.5%

0.2%

3 1 5

33.3% 11.1% 55.6% 100.0%

1 2 3

16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

305

35.9%

179

36.3%

159

38.9%

176

30.1%

0 110 195

0.0% 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

0 76 103

0.0% 42.5% 57.5% 100.0%

0 54 105

0.0% 34.0% 66.0% 100.0%

0 77 99

0.0% 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%

0.2%

2.8%

1.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 3 11

0.0% 21.4% 78.6% 100.0%

0 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

217

25.5%

109

22.1%

133

0 76 141

0.0% 35.0% 65.0% 100.0%

0 53 56

0.0% 48.6% 51.4% 100.0%

10.1%

0 33 53

0.0% 38.4% 61.6% 100.0%

536

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 18

0.8%

4 4 10

22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 100.0%

29.5%

837

34.9%

0 9 9

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 326 511

0.0% 38.9% 61.1% 100.0%

1.2%

0.0%

1.1%

0 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

0 4 23

0.0% 14.8% 85.2% 100.0%

32.5%

130

22.2%

26.2%

605

25.2%

0 43 90

0.0% 32.3% 67.7% 100.0%

0 58 72

0.0% 44.6% 55.4% 100.0%

0 8 8

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 238 367

0.0% 39.3% 60.7% 100.0%

11.4%

5.4%

6.7%

3.3%

205

8.5%

0 20 36

0.0% 35.7% 64.3% 100.0%

0 11 11

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 19 20

0.0% 48.7% 51.3% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 84 121

0.0% 41.0% 59.0% 100.0%

63.1%

308

62.5%

248

60.6%

408

69.7%

70.5%

1543

64.3%

0 234 302

0.0% 43.7% 56.3% 100.0%

0 153 155

0.0% 49.7% 50.3% 100.0%

0 86 162

0.0% 34.7% 65.3% 100.0%

0 159 249

0.0% 39.0% 61.0% 100.0%

0 12 31

0.0% 27.9% 72.1% 100.0%

0 644 899

0.0% 41.7% 58.3% 100.0%

396

46.6%

218

44.2%

209

51.1%

306

52.3%

34.4%

1150

48.0%

0 182 214

0.0% 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%

0 117 101

0.0% 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%

0 70 139

0.0% 33.5% 66.5% 100.0%

0 118 188

0.0% 38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

0 7 14

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

0 494 656

0.0% 43.0% 57.0% 100.0%

140

16.5%

18.3%

9.5%

102

17.4%

36.1%

393

16.4%

0 52 88

0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

0 36 54

0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

0 16 23

0.0% 41.0% 59.0% 100.0%

0 41 61

0.0% 40.2% 59.8% 100.0%

0 5 17

0.0% 22.7% 77.3% 100.0%

0 150 243

0.0% 38.2% 61.8% 100.0%

850

100.0%

493

100.0%

409

100.0%

585

100.0%

2398

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=849)

Percentage

85.0

15.0

Bronx (N=494)

85.4

14.6

Manhattan (N=409)

87.8

12.2

Queens (N=585)

Gender Males Females

1999 JO Arrests

Exhibit 1C Gender by Borough:

83.8

16.2

Staten Is. (N=61)

86.9

13.1

Citywide (N=2398)

85.3

14.7

-14-

-15-

Table 1c Gender by Arrest Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: Males Females Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Males Females Subtotal OTHER C OR D FELONIES Males Females Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

1.1%

1.4%

0.7%

0.3%

9 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6 1

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

3 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

304

35.8%

179

36.2%

158

38.6%

176

30.1%

266 38

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

155 24

86.6% 13.4% 100.0%

138 20

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

154 22

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

0.2%

2.8%

1.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

14 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

219

25.8%

112

22.7%

134

198 21

90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

98 14

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

9.8%

66 17

79.5% 20.5% 100.0%

536

0.0%

CITYWIDE N % 21

0.9%

20 1

95.2% 4.8% 100.0%

29.5%

835

34.8%

17 1

94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

730 105

87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

1.2%

0.0%

1.1%

7 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0

27 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32.8%

130

22.2%

26.2%

611

25.5%

120 14

89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

111 19

85.4% 14.6% 100.0%

16 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

543 68

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

10.7%

4.9%

6.7%

3.3%

197

8.2%

43 10

81.1% 18.9% 100.0%

14 6

70.0% 30.0% 100.0%

36 3

92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

160 37

81.2% 18.8% 100.0%

63.1%

308

62.3%

248

60.6%

407

69.6%

70.5% 1542

64.3%

447 89

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

261 47

84.7% 15.3% 100.0%

218 30

87.9% 12.1% 100.0%

334 73

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

36 7

83.7% 1296 16.3% 246 100.0%

84.0% 16.0% 100.0%

396

46.6%

218

44.1%

209

51.1%

306

52.3%

34.4% 1150

48.0%

321 75

81.1% 18.9% 100.0%

184 34

84.4% 15.6% 100.0%

186 23

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

252 54

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

16 5

76.2% 23.8% 100.0%

959 191

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

140

16.5%

18.2%

9.5%

101

17.3%

36.1%

392

16.3%

126 14

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

77 13

85.6% 14.4% 100.0%

32 7

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

82 19

81.2% 18.8% 100.0%

20 2

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

337 55

86.0% 14.0% 100.0%

849

100.0%

494

100.0%

409

100.0%

585

100.0%

100.0% 2398

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=851)

Percentage

60.5

39.5

Bronx (N=494)

69.2

30.8

Manhattan (N=409)

56.2

43.8

Queens (N=586)

74.7

25.3

Juvenile Offenses Not Docketed Docketed

1999 JO Arrests

Staten Is. (N=61)

Exhibit 1D Non-Docketed Arrests By Borough:

75.4

24.6

Citywide (N=2401)

65.4

34.6

-16-

-17-

Table 1d Non-Docketed Arrests by Arrest Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Arrests

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal ROBBERY 2: (160.10) Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal OTHER C OR D FELONIES Not Docketed Docketed Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

Bronx N %

BOROUGH Manhattan N %

Queens %

Staten Island N %

1.1%

1.4%

0.7%

0.3%

1 8

11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

3 4

42.9% 57.1% 100.0%

1 2

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0

306

36.0%

179

36.2%

159

38.9%

176

30.0%

78 228

25.5% 74.5% 100.0%

63 116

35.2% 64.8% 100.0%

25 134

15.7% 84.3% 100.0%

63 113

35.8% 64.2% 100.0%

0.2%

2.8%

1.0%

0 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2 12

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

0 4

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

218

25.6%

109

22.1%

133

41 177

18.8% 81.2% 100.0%

36 73

33.0% 67.0% 100.0%

10.1%

37 49

43.0% 57.0% 100.0%

536

0.0%

CITYWIDE % N 21

0.9%

6 15

28.6% 71.4% 100.0%

29.5%

838

34.9%

8 10

44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

237 601

28.3% 71.7% 100.0%

1.2%

0.0%

1.1%

0 7

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

2 25

7.4% 92.6% 100.0%

32.5%

130

22.2%

26.2%

606

25.2%

21 112

15.8% 84.2% 100.0%

45 85

34.6% 65.4% 100.0%

6 10

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

149 457

24.6% 75.4% 100.0%

11.3%

5.4%

6.7%

3.3%

205

8.5%

25 31

44.6% 55.4% 100.0%

4 18

18.2% 81.8% 100.0%

18 21

46.2% 53.8% 100.0%

2 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

86 119

42.0% 58.0% 100.0%

63.0%

308

62.3%

247

60.4%

408

69.6%

70.5% 1542

64.2%

436 100

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

276 32

89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

204 43

82.6% 17.4% 100.0%

374 34

91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

38 5

88.4% 1328 11.6% 214 100.0%

86.1% 13.9% 100.0%

396

46.5%

218

44.1%

208

50.9%

306

52.2%

34.4% 1149

47.9%

304 92

76.8% 23.2% 100.0%

194 24

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

166 42

79.8% 20.2% 100.0%

278 28

90.8% 9.2% 100.0%

16 5

76.2% 23.8% 100.0%

958 191

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

140

16.5%

18.2%

9.5%

102

17.4%

36.1%

393

16.4%

132 8

94.3% 5.7% 100.0%

82 8

91.1% 8.9% 100.0%

38 1

97.4% 2.6% 100.0%

96 6

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

22 0

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

370 23

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

851

100.0%

494

100.0%

409

100.0%

586

100.0%

100.0% 2401

100.0%

-18Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION II. CRIMINAL COURT ARRAIGNMENT There were 83412 cases arraigned with JO offenses during this reporting period, fewer than the 923 arraigned in 1998, and fewer than in any previous year in this report series: 881 were arraigned in 1997, 896 were arraigned in 1996, and 1231 were arraigned in 1995. The change in arraignment volume is not even across the boroughs. The decline was substantial (38%) in the Bronx, and smaller in Manhattan (11%), while the number of arraignments decreased slightly in Brooklyn and increased by 26 percent in Queens. Exhibit 2A.1 indicates that a majority of arraignment affidavit charges were for first degree robbery (52%), and another quarter for second degree robbery (28%). 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, 1997 and 1998 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 are more prevalent among the arraignment affidavit charges and second degree robbery charges are 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 six percent of all arraignments were for these most severe charges, as compared to 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, 25 percent of cases for juveniles with first degree robbery arrest charges were not prosecuted in the adult court, compared to 83 percent of the cases for juveniles with arrest charges of second degree robbery. Far fewer juveniles were arraigned in Criminal Court than were arrested, so those with first degree robbery 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 varied widely, from a high of 61 percent for Queens, to a low of 34 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, first and second degree robbery account for 81 to 86 percent of the JO arraignments in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan, but still only 66 percent of the Bronx arraignments. The Bronx shows a particularly high proportion (11%) of arraigned dockets with first degree rape or sodomy charges, compared to less than five percent in the other boroughs. The proportion with arraignment charges of second degree murder or attempted murder in the second degree was over eleven percent in the Bronx, eight percent in Queens, and three 12

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, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

percent in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Table 2a presents the full distribution of arraignment affidavit charges for all boroughs.13 Exhibit 2B indicates that there are very few dismissals (5) or transfers to Family Court (3) at Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 2C indicates that a third of the juveniles arraigned in Criminal Court were released on their own recognizance (ROR) citywide. The rate of ROR is much lower than in 1998 (40%), but is similar to the rate in 1997 (34%) and 1996 (35%). Borough differences are substantial with the highest ROR rate found in Brooklyn (38%), compared with 30 to 32 percent in the other boroughs. The 1999 ROR rates in Brooklyn and Queens matched the rates for the previous reporting period, but the 1999 ROR rates in Manhattan and the Bronx are far lower than the rates in these boroughs in 1998, by ten and fourteen percentage points, respectively. 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 four percent citywide, ranging from two percent in Queens and the Bronx to almost seven percent in the Bronx. In 1998 and previous reporting years, Queens juveniles showed the highest proportion of release on bail, with nearly nine percent of arraigned juveniles in that borough in 1998 posting bail to secure release. 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 (87%); this is in contrast to less than three percent of those arraigned on B felonies and none facing a C- or D-felony charge. Further, the proportion released on ROR in arraignments for B felonies is 29 percent, as compared to 46 percent in arraignments for C or D 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 1999, the largest group of cases, 34 percent of defendants citywide were released on ROR, down from 39 percent for 1998, but similar to the 32 and 30 percent release rates reported for 1997 and 1996, respectively. The ROR rate (40%) for Brooklyn arraignments for first degree robbery is the highest among the boroughs, and slightly higher than in 1998 (36%). The citywide decrease in the proportion of juveniles released on ROR when arraigned on first degree robbery charges is reflected in each of the other boroughs. The ROR rate for these arraignments declined from 47 to 31 percent in the Bronx, from 38 to 28 percent in Manhattan, and from 35 to 30 percent in Queens. Exhibit 2D shows the release patterns for males and females in Criminal Court arraignments. Here, there are large differences: more than half of the females were released on ROR (53%, down from 58% in 1998), as compared to 28 percent of the males, (down from 36% in 1998. The gender difference probably, in part, reflects the over representation of females at the C- and D-, rather than the A- or B-felony arraignment charge severity level. Table 2E and Exhibit 2e are new to this report series. They display the release status set at arraignment by juvenile recommendation category, according to the new juvenile release recommendation system, first implemented for testing in April, 1996. Prior to that date, the interview 13

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, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

data for juvenile defendants were provided without a release recommendation because the communityties criteria for recommending defendants for ROR were designed specifically for the adult defendant population. Like the adult release recommendation system, the new juvenile release recommendation system provides lower court arraignment judges with a recommendation for release based on risk of failure to appear. The juvenile recommendation incorporates two criteria, both of which were found to be strongly related to FTA for juveniles: school attendance and whether the juvenile is expecting someone (family or friend) at arraignment. In 1999, nearly eight of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive recommendation. However, some of the arraigned juveniles were not interviewed, some were interviewed but their recommendation rating was missing, and some were rated “For Information Only” according to protocol used prior to the development of the juvenile recommendation system. If only juveniles who were interviewed and correctly evaluated are considered, then nine of every ten arraigned juveniles received a positive release recommendation. The juvenile release recommendation may be overridden by a policy consideration that excludes the defendant from eligibility for either a positive or negative recommendation. These considerations include the “Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID,” “No NYSID Available,” “Murder Charge” (125.25 or 110-125.25) or “Interview Incomplete,” but only the murder charge exclusion was exercised in any of the four largest boroughs in 1999. If the juveniles in these categories are excluded, then fully 95 percent of the remaining juveniles arraigned in criminal Court in 1999 qualified for a recommendation for ROR. Juveniles who were recommended for ROR are far more likely to secure release on recognizance than those who were not recommended. More than a third of the juveniles in the positive recommendation category (36%), compared to only one of every five (22%) who were not recommended, were ROR’d at arraignment. However, in 1999 only 32 juveniles were not recommended for ROR based on their school attendance and expectation for someone to attend their arraignment.

-21-

Exhibit 2A.1 Arraignment Affidavit Charge Citywide: 1999 JO Arrests

Robbery 1 51.6%

Att. Murder 2 3.8%

Murder 2 1.8%

Other* 10.3% Assault 1 4.2%

Robbery 2 28.3%

(N=834)

* Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=337)

Percentage

0.9 2.4

50.4

31.5

3.6

11.3

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=186) *Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

2.7

8.7

34.2

31.5

6.7

16.1

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

Bronx (N=149)

Att. Murder 2

1999 JO Arraignments

2.2 1.1

59.1

26.9

3.2

7.5

Assault 1

Exhibit 2A.2 Arraignment Affidavit Charge By Borough:

Queens (N=162)

Other*

7.4 0.6

61.1

20.4

4.3

6.2

-22-

337

106 4 6 3

119

3 170 12 1 6 10 0 7 1 0

210

8 0 0

100.0%

89.1% 3.4% 5.0% 2.5% 100.0%

35.3%

1.4% 81.0% 5.7% 0.5% 2.9% 4.8% 0.0% 3.3% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%

62.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.4%

Brooklyn N %

149

47 0 1 4

13 51 10 0 9 7 0 1 2 0

4 0 0

100.0%

90.4% 0.0% 1.9% 7.7% 100.0%

34.9%

14.0% 54.8% 10.8% 0.0% 9.7% 7.5% 0.0% 1.1% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%

62.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.7%

186

50 0 1 1

4 110 6 0 3 5 0 2 2 0

132

2 0 0

100.0%

96.2% 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%

28.0%

3.0% 83.3% 4.5% 0.0% 2.3% 3.8% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

71.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.1%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

1 0 0

162

33 0 1 3

12 99 7 0 1 0 0 3 2 0

100.0%

89.2% 0.0% 2.7% 8.1% 100.0%

22.8%

9.7% 79.8% 5.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.6% 0.0% 100.0%

76.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.6%

Queens %

124

834

236 4 9 11

260

32 430 35 1 19 22 0 13 7 0

559

15 0 0

100.0%

90.8% 1.5% 3.5% 4.2% 100.0%

31.2%

5.7% 76.9% 6.3% 0.2% 3.4% 3.9% 0.0% 2.3% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

67.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.8%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL

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

TOTAL C OR D 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 1999 JO Arraignments

Table 2a

-23-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=337)

Percentage

99.1

0.3 0.6

Bronx (N=149)

Continued

98.7

1.3

Manhattan (N=186)

98.4

1.1 0.5

Arraignment Outcome Trans. to Fam. Court

1999 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=162)

Dismissed

Exhibit 2B Arraignment Outcome By Borough:

100.0

Citywide (N=834)

99.0

0.6 0.4

-24-

-25-

Table 2b Arraignment Outcome by Affidavit Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: Continued TR-FC Dismissed Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

2.7%

1.1%

0.6%

1.8%

8 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

210

62.3%

62.4%

132

71.0%

124

76.5%

559

67.0%

208 2 0

99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%

93 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

129 1 2

97.7% 0.8% 1.5% 100.0%

124 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

554 3 2

99.1% 0.5% 0.4% 100.0%

0.9%

8.7%

2.2%

7.4%

3.8%

3 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

170

50.4%

34.2%

110

59.1%

61.1%

430

51.6%

168 2 0

98.8% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0%

51 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

108 0 2

98.2% 0.0% 1.8% 100.0%

99 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

426 2 2

99.1% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0%

11.0%

19.5%

9.7%

8.0%

11.6%

37 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

17 1 0

94.4% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

96 1 0

99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%

119

35.3%

34.9%

28.0%

22.8%

260

31.2%

118 0 1

99.2% 0.0% 0.8% 100.0%

50 0 2

96.2% 0.0% 3.8% 100.0%

52 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

257 0 3

98.8% 0.0% 1.2% 100.0%

337

100.0%

149

100.0%

186

100.0%

162

100.0%

834

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=331)

Percentage

38.1

3.8

56.2

2.1

ROR

Bronx (N=147)

32.0

6.8

53.7

7.5

Manhattan (N=183)

30.6

2.2

64.5

2.7

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1999 JO Arraignments

Queens (N=162)

29.6

1.9

66.0

2.5

Remand

Exhibit 2C Arraignment Release Status By Borough:

Citywide (N=823)

33.7

3.5

59.5

3.3

-26-

-27-

Table 2c Arraignment Release Status by Affidavit Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

2.7%

1.1%

0.6%

1.8%

0 0 1 7

0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 100.0%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 13

0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 86.7% 100.0%

205

61.9%

63.3%

129

70.5%

124

76.5%

551

67.0%

73 5 127 0

35.6% 2.4% 62.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22 6 57 8

23.7% 6.5% 61.3% 8.6% 100.0%

34 3 89 3

26.4% 2.3% 69.0% 2.3% 100.0%

31 1 89 3

25.0% 0.8% 71.8% 2.4% 100.0%

160 15 362 14

29.0% 2.7% 65.7% 2.5% 100.0%

0.9%

8.8%

2.2%

7.4%

3.9%

0 1 2 0

0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 7 5

7.7% 0.0% 53.8% 38.5% 100.0%

0 0 2 2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 10 2

0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

1 1 21 9

3.1% 3.1% 65.6% 28.1% 100.0%

166

50.2%

34.7%

108

59.0%

61.1%

424

51.5%

66 3 97 0

39.8% 1.8% 58.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16 4 31 0

31.4% 7.8% 60.8% 0.0% 100.0%

30 3 75 0

27.8% 2.8% 69.4% 0.0% 100.0%

30 1 67 1

30.3% 1.0% 67.7% 1.0% 100.0%

142 11 270 1

33.5% 2.6% 63.7% 0.2% 100.0%

10.9%

19.7%

9.3%

8.0%

11.5%

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

7 1 28 0

19.4% 2.8% 77.8% 0.0% 100.0%

5 2 19 3

17.2% 6.9% 65.5% 10.3% 100.0%

4 0 12 1

23.5% 0.0% 70.6% 5.9% 100.0%

1 0 12 0

7.7% 0.0% 92.3% 0.0% 100.0%

17 3 71 4

17.9% 3.2% 74.7% 4.2% 100.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

118

35.6%

34.0%

28.4%

22.8%

257

31.2%

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

53 7 58 0

44.9% 5.9% 49.2% 0.0% 100.0%

25 4 21 0

50.0% 8.0% 42.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22 1 29 0

42.3% 1.9% 55.8% 0.0% 100.0%

17 2 18 0

45.9% 5.4% 48.6% 0.0% 100.0%

117 14 126 0

45.5% 5.4% 49.0% 0.0% 100.0%

331

100.0%

147

100.0%

183

100.0%

162

100.0%

823

100.0%

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

TOTAL*

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 11 arraignments: 5 dismissals and 6 for which arraignment release status was not available

Bail Set/Not Made 65.7%

(N=113)

Bail Set/Not Made 43.4%

Females

Remand 0.9%

ROR 53.0%

Males

Remand 2.8%

ROR 27.8%

(N=708)

Bail Set/Made 3.7%

1999 JO Arraignments

Exhibit 2D Arraignment Release Status by Gender Citywide:

Bail Set/Made 2.7%

-28-

331

30 2 12 0

96 10 174 7

287

100.0%

68.2% 4.5% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%

13.3%

33.4% 3.5% 60.6% 2.4% 100.0%

86.7%

Brooklyn N %

147

7 1 9 0

21 9 92 8

130

N 88.4%

100.0%

41.2% 5.9% 52.9% 0.0% 100.0%

11.6%

181

14 0 15 0

41 4 104 3

152

100.0%

48.3% 0.0% 51.7% 0.0% 100.0%

16.0%

27.0% 2.6% 68.4% 2.0% 100.0%

84.0%

BOROUGH Manhattan % N %

16.2% 6.9% 70.8% 6.2% 100.0%

Bronx

162

9 0 13 1

39 3 95 2

139

100.0%

39.1% 0.0% 56.5% 4.3% 100.0%

14.2%

28.1% 2.2% 68.3% 1.4% 100.0%

85.8%

Queens N %

821

60 3 49 1

113

197 26 465 20

708

100.0%

53.1% 2.7% 43.4% 0.9% 100.0%

13.8%

27.8% 3.7% 65.7% 2.8% 100.0%

86.2%

CITYWIDE N %

* Excludes 13 arraignments: 5 dismissals, 6 for which arraignment release status was not available, and 2 for which gender was not available

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 1999 JO Arraignments

Table 2d

-29-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=331)

Percentage

83.7

6.0 1.8 1.8

6.6

Bronx (N=147)

72.1

74.9

5.5

2.2

7.5 5.4

9.3

15.8

11.6

74.7

4.9

6.2

4.9

1.6

Queens (N=162)

For Information Only

3.4

Manhattan (N=183)

J7C--Murder Charge Recommendation Not Available

J5--Recommended

Release Status J6--Not Recommended

Exhibit 2E Arraignment Release Status By Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 1999 JO Arraignments

Citywide (N=823)

77.9

3.8 3.9

9.8

4.6

-30-

-31-

Table 2e Arraignment Release Status by Juvenile Recommendation Category by Borough for 1999 JO Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES J5--Recommended:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

277

83.7%

106

72.1%

137

74.9%

121

74.7%

641

77.9%

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

112 11 153 1

40.4% 4.0% 55.2% 0.4% 100.0%

39 7 58 2

36.8% 6.6% 54.7% 1.9% 100.0%

41 4 91 1

29.9% 2.9% 66.4% 0.7% 100.0%

36 2 81 2

29.8% 1.7% 66.9% 1.7% 100.0%

228 24 383 6

35.6% 3.7% 59.8% 0.9% 100.0%

J6--Not Recommended:

1.8%

5.4%

5.5%

4.9%

3.9%

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

3 0 3 0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 2 5 0

12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 7 1

20.0% 0.0% 70.0% 10.0% 100.0%

1 0 7 0

12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%

7 2 22 1

21.9% 6.3% 68.8% 3.1% 100.0%

1.8%

7.5%

2.2%

6.2%

3.8%

0 0 0 6

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 0 6 4

9.1% 0.0% 54.5% 36.4% 100.0%

0 0 1 3

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

1 0 8 1

10.0% 0.0% 80.0% 10.0% 100.0%

2 0 15 14

6.5% 0.0% 48.4% 45.2% 100.0%

6.0%

11.6%

15.8%

9.3%

9.8%

4 0 16 0

20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 9 3

23.5% 5.9% 52.9% 17.6% 100.0%

12 0 17 0

41.4% 0.0% 58.6% 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 1 7

46.7% 0.0% 6.7% 46.7% 100.0%

27 1 43 10

33.3% 1.2% 53.1% 12.3% 100.0%

6.6%

3.4%

1.6%

4.9%

4.6%

7 1 14 0

31.8% 4.5% 63.6% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 2

40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0%

1 0 2 0

33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 4 0

37.5% 12.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 2 21 2

34.2% 5.3% 55.3% 5.3% 100.0%

331

100.0%

147

100.0%

183

100.0%

162

100.0%

823

100.0%

J7C--Murder Charge: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal For Information Only*: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal Recommendation Not Available: ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal TOTAL**

Note: The percentages in bold are those each juvenile recommendation category represents of the total N for each borough and citywide. * "For Information Only" is the recommendation stamp used for juveniles prior to the introduction of the new juvenile recommendation system. * Excludes 11 arraignments: 5 dismissals and 6 for which arraignment release status was not available

-32Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION III. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION A total of 871 dockets reached disposition14 in the Criminal Court during the reporting period, an increase of nearly seven percent from 1998. This follows a three percent decline from 1997 to 1998, 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 -- nearly eight of every ten are first or second degree robbery. Exhibit 3B.1 presents the types of dispositions these cases received. Citywide, 46 percent of the disposed JO cases were transferred to Supreme Court, similar to the rates in previous years, which fluctuated between 42 and 48 percent in the years between 1995 and 1998. Again, there are borough differences, with Manhattan (57%) and Queens (56%) showing the highest proportion of Supreme Court transfers among dockets disposed in Criminal Court (compared to 45% in the Bronx but little more than a third 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 and the Bronx had the highest dismissal rates (36%), followed by Brooklyn (20%) and Queens (8%). The enormous range across the boroughs here may reflect different policies among the district attorney offices regarding referrals and removals.15 Manhattan also showed the lowest rate of transfer to Family Court (7%) while Brooklyn showed the highest rate (45%). Citywide, three of every ten juvenile offender cases disposed in the Criminal Court during the reporting period were transferred to Family Court. Charge relates strongly 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, is higher when the charge is more severe. Most of the A-felony dockets (83% of 18 cases) were transferred to Supreme Court, as compared to half of the B-felony dockets and less than a third of the C- or D-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, 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 median 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 charge. The median is the midpoint of the distribution of the number of appearance or of days elapsed. Means (arithmetic averages) were 14 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. 15

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

-33Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

presented in previous reports in this series, but the median will now be used as the measure of central tendency because it affords an important advantage. Unlike the arithmetic mean, the median is not sensitive to outlying data points. That is, the mean is easily pulled by a few very large values, especially when the number of cases is small, as often occurs in this report. Just a few juveniles who return on a warrant, for example, can cause a large shift in the mean number of days between two events, particularly within categories of borough and charge or release status. The median value is not distorted by the presence of a few such cases. The median number of appearances in Criminal Court in 1999 was 3, one fewer than the citywide median for 1998 (Table 3c). Since the median number of appearances in each borough was the same for 1999 as for 1998 (3 for Brooklyn and Manhattan and 5 for the Bronx and Queens) the citywide decrease is attributable to the change in the borough composition of the citywide figures. The median number of appearances was the same for cases where the juvenile was held at arraignment as for cases where the juvenile was released on recognizance. There was little difference in the number of appearances by severity of affidavit charge. The median number of days in Criminal Court (16 days) was lower than in the previous period (17). The medians were higher in 1999 than in 1998 in Brooklyn (10, up from 5) and Queens (38, up from 34) and lower in the Bronx (13, down from 19) and Manhattan (7, down from 10). This probably reflects changes within each borough in the release conditions set for the juveniles, since the median 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=337)

Percentage

0.9 2.4

52.2

28.2

5.9

10.4

Murder 2

Manhattan (N=197)

2.0 1.0

54.3

31.5

5.1

6.1

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=170)

2.9

7.6

35.3

27.6

9.4

17.1

Att. Murder 2

6.0 1.2

65.3

18.6

3.0

6.0

Assault 1

Queens (N=167)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3A Criminal Court Disposition Charge By Borough:

Citywide (N=871)

Other*

3.4 2.0

51.9

27.0

5.9

9.9

-34-

337

95 4 4 2

105

3 176 20 1 6 10 0 7 1 0

224

8 0 0

100.0%

90.5% 3.8% 3.8% 1.9% 100.0%

31.2%

1.3% 78.6% 8.9% 0.4% 2.7% 4.5% 0.0% 3.1% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%

66.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.4%

Brooklyn N %

170

47 1 1 4

13 60 16 0 11 8 0 1 2 0

111

5 1 0

100.0%

88.7% 1.9% 1.9% 7.5% 100.0%

31.2%

11.7% 54.1% 14.4% 0.0% 9.9% 7.2% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

65.3%

83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

3.5%

197

62 0 1 1

4 107 10 0 4 3 0 2 1 0

131

2 0 0

100.0%

96.9% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0%

32.5%

3.1% 81.7% 7.6% 0.0% 3.1% 2.3% 0.0% 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

66.5%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

2 0 0

167

31 0 1 2

10 109 5 1 1 0 0 3 2 0

100.0%

91.2% 0.0% 2.9% 5.9% 100.0%

20.4%

7.6% 83.2% 3.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

78.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1.2%

Queens %

131

871

235 5 7 9

256

30 452 51 2 22 21 0 13 6 0

597

17 1 0

100.0%

91.8% 2.0% 2.7% 3.5% 100.0%

29.4%

5.0% 75.7% 8.5% 0.3% 3.7% 3.5% 0.0% 2.2% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%

68.5%

94.4% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

2.1%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL

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

TOTAL C OR D 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 1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Table 3a

-35-

100%

[868]

Citywide

[166]

Queens

[196]

Manhattan

[170]

Bronx

[336]

Brooklyn

(29.5)

(18.8)

50%

(36.1)

(6.6)

25%

(24.5)

(36.2)

(36.5)

50%

(46.0)

(44.7)

(56.0)

(57.1)

75% Percentage Transferred to Superme Court

25%

(35.1)

Transfers To FC

*These totals exclude "other" dispositions (one each in Broooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens).

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

(7.8)

(19.9)

Transfers To SC

Percentage Disposed in Criminal Court

75%

(44.9)

Dismissals

1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

Exhibit 3B.1 Criminal Court Disposition by Borough:

100%

-36-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11.1% 5.6%

(N=18)

Total A Felonies

83.3%

Percent

Transfers to SC

21.1%

28.1%

Transfers to FC

(N=597)

Total B Felonies

50.8%

Dismissals

1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

34%

1.2%

(N=256)

Total C or D Felonies

31.6% 33.2%

Other

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

-37-

-38-

Table 3b Criminal Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: Dism TR-SC TR-FC Other Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

2.4%

3.5%

1.0%

1.2%

2.1%

0 8 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 3 1 0

33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 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%

2 15 1 0

11.1% 83.3% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

224

66.5%

111

65.3%

131

66.5%

131

78.4%

597

68.5%

41 94 89 0

18.3% 42.0% 39.7% 0.0% 100.0%

33 56 22 0

29.7% 50.5% 19.8% 0.0% 100.0%

43 77 11 0

32.8% 58.8% 8.4% 0.0% 100.0%

9 76 46 0

6.9% 58.0% 35.1% 0.0% 100.0%

126 303 168 0

21.1% 50.8% 28.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0.9%

7.6%

2.0%

6.0%

3.4%

0 2 1 0

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 10 1 0

15.4% 76.9% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 0 0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 10 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 24 2 0

13.3% 80.0% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0%

176

52.2%

35.3%

107

54.3%

109

65.3%

452

51.9%

36 65 75 0

20.5% 36.9% 42.6% 0.0% 100.0%

16 31 13 0

26.7% 51.7% 21.7% 0.0% 100.0%

33 65 9 0

30.8% 60.7% 8.4% 0.0% 100.0%

9 59 41 0

8.3% 54.1% 37.6% 0.0% 100.0%

94 220 138 0

20.8% 48.7% 30.5% 0.0% 100.0%

13.4%

22.4%

10.2%

7.2%

115

13.2%

5 27 13 0

11.1% 60.0% 28.9% 0.0% 100.0%

15 15 8 0

39.5% 39.5% 21.1% 0.0% 100.0%

8 10 2 0

40.0% 50.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 7 5 0

0.0% 58.3% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%

28 59 28 0

24.3% 51.3% 24.3% 0.0% 100.0%

105

31.2%

32.5%

20.4%

256

29.4%

26 16 62 1

24.8% 15.2% 59.0% 1.0% 100.0%

27 17 9 0

50.9% 32.1% 17.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28 33 2 1

43.8% 51.6% 3.1% 1.6% 100.0%

4 15 14 1

11.8% 44.1% 41.2% 2.9% 100.0%

85 81 87 3

33.2% 31.6% 34.0% 1.2% 100.0%

337

100.0%

170

100.0%

197

100.0%

167

100.0%

871

100.0%

(N=573)

Total B Felonies

(N=18)

3.5

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

(N=266)

Total C or D Felonies

Remand

Exhibit 3C Median Number of Appearances From Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court by Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity Citywide: 1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

-39-

-40-

Table 3c Median Number of Appearances from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

3.0

5.5

3.5

15.0

3.5

0 0 1 7

5.0 3.0

0 0 1 5

3.0 7.0

0 0 0 2

3.5

0 0 0 2

15.0

0 0 2 16

4.0 3.5

210

3.0

106

5.0

129

3.0

128

5.0

573

3.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

77 5 128 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

29 6 61 10

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5

42 2 82 3

3.0 5.5 3.0 3.0

36 6 83 3

5.0 6.5 5.0 15.0

184 19 354 16

3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

111

3.0

4.5

266

3.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

47 7 57 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

31 3 21 0

5.0 5.0 3.0 -

31 1 32 0

3.0 3.0 3.0 -

17 2 17 0

5.0 6.0 3.0 -

126 13 127 0

3.0 5.0 3.0 -

329

3.0

167

5.0

195

3.0

166

5.0

857

3.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 14 juveniles for whom release status at arraignment was not available.

(N=18)

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Days

5.5

ROR

33.5

(N=573)

Total B Felonies

9.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

(N=266)

Total C or D Felonies

29.5

Remand

1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions

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

-41-

-42-

Table 3d Median Number of Days from Arraignment Through Disposition in Criminal Court By Arraignment Release Status and Affidavit Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Criminal Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

5.0

14.0

9.0

152.0

5.5

0 0 1 7

10.0 5.0

0 0 1 5

4.0 21.0

0 0 0 2

9.0

0 0 0 2

152.0

0 0 2 16

7.0 5.5

210

5.0

106

12.5

129

5.0

128

43.0

573

17.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

77 5 128 0

23.0 5.0 5.0 -

29 6 61 10

49.0 18.5 8.0 9.5

42 2 82 3

69.5 143.0 5.0 5.0

36 6 83 3

43.5 121.5 42.0 128.0

184 19 354 16

33.5 27.0 5.0 9.5

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

111

15.0

28.0

16.5

266

16.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

47 7 57 0

20.0 23.0 5.0 -

31 3 21 0

35.0 44.0 5.0 -

31 1 32 0

89.0 4.0 5.0 -

17 2 17 0

14.0 51.0 18.0 -

126 13 127 0

29.5 25.0 5.0 -

329

10.0

167

13.0

195

7.0

166

37.5

857

16.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 14 juveniles for whom release status at arraignment was not available.

-43Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION IV. FIRST APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT More juvenile cases reached Supreme Court in 1999 than in 1998 (372, up from 336). The increase was greatest in Queens, followed by Brooklyn and Manhattan, while in the Bronx, the volume of cases at the first appearance in the upper court declined by 38 percent from 1998 to 1999. Bronx cases account for only barely one in every seven (16%) juvenile cases citywide that reached the first Supreme Court appearance in 1999, compared to nearly three of every ten (29%) in 1998. The charge distribution at the first appearance in Supreme Court,16 displayed in Exhibits 4A.1 (citywide) and 4A.2 (borough specific), shows that first and second degree robbery are still the most common charges. However, these charges account together for seven of every ten JO cases entering the upper court in 1999 but accounted for eight of every ten entering the upper court in previous reporting years. Although second degree murder charges account for less than one percent of all arrests during this reporting period, this charge category accounts for four percent of cases in the upper court in the period. Similarly, attempted second degree murder accounts for one percent of arrest charges in the year but four percent of charges associated with cases that reached first appearance in Supreme Court in 1999. First degree robbery accounts for a quarter percent of all juvenile arrests during 1999, and half of all cases for juveniles at the first milestone in the upper court in 1999. When looking at the cases of juveniles at the first appearance in Supreme Court, more serious JO charges are more likely to be represented than are the less serious charges. As shown in Exhibit 4B, 18 percent of the defendants in cases that reached Supreme Court in 1999 pled guilty at their first appearance in upper court, much lower than the 26 and 28 percent in 1998 and 1997, respectively. Forty-eight percent of the defendants pled not guilty at their first appearance, slightly more than the 44 percent who pled not guilty during the previous year. Nearly a third 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 pre-arraignment conference. This is an increase from little more than a quarter of the cases in 1998, and probably reflects the decline in the citywide proportion of cases where the guilty plea was entered at the first appearance. The high proportion of defendants who pled guilty in cases in Queens (55%) is notable, up from 45 percent in 1998. The proportion who pled guilty in cases in the Bronx (26%) is half the rate shown in 1998 (55%) and 1997 (57%) but still far higher than the rate in Brooklyn or Manhattan where only one defendant pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court. The sharp decline in the volume of Bronx juvenile cases at the first upper court appearance and the drop in the proportion of Bronx juvenile cases in which the defendants pled guilty at their first appearance together account for the citywide decline in guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance. The large proportion of guilty pleas at the first Supreme Court appearance in Queens and the Bronx boroughs reflects borough differences in plea policies and the use of a Superior Court Information (SCI).17 The borough differences are visible even within charge severity categories. In Queens and the Bronx, 50 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of defendants with B-felony charges 16

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. 17

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.

-44Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

pled guilty at the first appearance in Supreme Court. Among those who faced C- or D-felony charges, a third of Bronx juveniles and more than three quarters of those in Queens pled guilty at the first Supreme Court appearance. 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 released on ROR or on bail at the first Supreme Court appearance during the reporting period in 41 percent of cases, much lower than the 47 percent rate in 1998, but comparable to the rate in 1997. Citywide, juveniles prosecuted in the Supreme Court were released on ROR at the first appearance in less than a quarter of all cases. Juveniles posted bail to secure release as of the date of the first appearance in 17 percent of cases, were held on bail in three of every ten cases and were remanded with no bail set at that early stage of Supreme Court prosecution in three of every ten cases. Compared to 1998 data, the ROR rate decreased by about eleven percentage points, while the proportion released on bail increased by four percentage points. The proportion held on bail and the proportion remanded without bail both increased, by about three and four percentage points, respectively. As shown in Table 4c, the release rate varied substantially by charge; only one defendant charged with an A felony was released (on bail), as compared to 40 percent of those charged with B felonies, and 52 percent of those charged with C or D felonies. The observed citywide changes are not reflected equally in the boroughs. Citywide, the ROR rate decreased from 1998 (34%) to 1999 (24%), following earlier increases from 1996 (25%) and 1997 (30%). The ROR rate at the first appearance in Supreme Court was highest in the Bronx (50%) in 1998, but dropped to 19 percent in 1999. The ROR rate in Brooklyn dropped to 25 percent in 1998 and to only nine percent in 1999. The Manhattan rate for 1998 (29%) was comparable to the 1999 rate (30%) while the ROR rate in Queens increased ten percentage points to 40 percent. When the proportions of cases with juveniles who secured release on ROR or bail are considered together, the rates are similar for 1998 and 1999 in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn, but not the Bronx. The Queens release rate remains very high (59%), much higher than the rates Manhattan (39%), Brooklyn (34%) or the Bronx (28%). The decline in the volume of Bronx cases at the first appearance in Supreme Court, the decline in the proportion of cases in which the defendant pled guilty at the first appearance, and the decline in the proportion of cases released at that early stage of processing, all contribute to the relatively low citywide releases rates at that point for juveniles in 1999. Exhibit 4D presents the median number of days from Criminal Court disposition through first appearance in Supreme Court, for each charge class, separately for each release status. As discussed earlier, previous reports in this series have presented the mean (arithmetic average) as the summary measure of the number of days, but the median will be used here and in future reports because it is resistant to individual outlying data points. Citywide, it took a median of roughly two weeks (15 days), to proceed from Criminal to Supreme Court (Table 4d), just as in 1998. Cases with less severe charges tended to moved more quickly to the upper court. A-felony cases showed a median of 25.5 days, B-felony cases took a median of 16 days, and C- or D-felony cases took 8.5 days. Borough differences, also shown in Table 4d, were wide. The median ranged from six days in Queens (down from 9 days in 1998) to 29 days in Brooklyn (up from 27). The median number of days in Manhattan dropped from 14 in 1998 to 7 in this reporting period. The median number of days to the first appearance in Supreme Court increased most in the Bronx (up to a median of 13 days, from 0

-45Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

days). The increase in the median number of days to reach the upper court in the Bronx reflects a decrease 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. A median of 0 days in the Bronx in 1998 indicates that more than half of the juvenile cases in the Bronx Supreme Court had arrived by SCI, rather than by indictment. Borough differences in the median 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. Yet it is clear that in 1999, as in 1998, cases for juveniles who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d tended to move more quickly to Supreme Court than did the cases of other juveniles. In 1999, unlike 1998, in each borough, juvenile cases with C- or D-felony charges reached Supreme Court from Criminal Court more quickly than did juveniles cases with B-felony charges. This probably reflects the change in the composition of the C- or D-felony category as a result of the addition of the weapon offenses to the list of charges for which juveniles are subject to prosecution in adult court.

-46-

Exhibit 4A.1 Supreme Court Charge at First Appearance Citywide: 1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Robbery 1 49.2%

Murder 2 4.3%

Att. Murder 2 4.3%

Other* 11.8% Robbery 2 21.8%

Assault 1 8.6%

(N=372)

Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=121)

Percentage

0.8 7.4

51.2

12.4

15.7

Murder 2

3.3

10.0

40.0

25.0

5.0

16.7

Manhattan (N=101)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=60)

Att. Murder 2

3.0 3.0

49.5

30.7

4.0

9.9

Assault 1

1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

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

Queens (N=90)

Other*

6.7 2.2

52.2

22.2

11.1

5.6

-47-

121

15 2 3 2

1 62 15 1 3 6 0 2 0 0

9 0 0

100.0%

68.2% 9.1% 13.6% 9.1% 100.0%

18.2%

1.1% 68.9% 16.7% 1.1% 3.3% 6.7% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

74.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7.4%

Brooklyn N %

15 0 0 1

6 24 3 1 3 3 0 0 2 0

2 0 0

100.0%

93.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%

26.7%

14.3% 57.1% 7.1% 2.4% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0%

70.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.3%

101

31 1 1 0

3 50 4 0 1 2 0 3 2 0

3 0 0

100.0%

93.9% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%

32.7%

4.6% 76.9% 6.2% 0.0% 1.5% 3.1% 0.0% 4.6% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

64.4%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3.0%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % N

20 0 0 0

6 47 10 3 0 0 0 2 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22.2%

8.8% 69.1% 14.7% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

75.6%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.2%

Queens %

372

81 3 4 3

16 183 32 5 7 11 0 7 4 0

265

16 0 0

100.0%

89.0% 3.3% 4.4% 3.3% 100.0%

24.5%

6.0% 69.1% 12.1% 1.9% 2.6% 4.2% 0.0% 2.6% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

71.2%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4.3%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL

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

TOTAL C OR D 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 1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Table 4a

-48-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=118)

Percentage

0.8

72.0

25.4

1.7

Bronx (N=58)

Pled Guilty

25.9

43.1

27.6

3.4

Manhattan (N=96)

1.0

47.9

50.0

1.0

Disposition Pled Not Guilty Continued

Queens (N=86)

54.7

17.4

24.4

3.5

Bench Warrant

1999 JO Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=358)

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

17.9

47.8

32.1

2.2

-49-

-50-

Table 4b Disposition by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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 OR D FELONIES: Pled Guilty Pled Not Guilty Continued Bench Warrant Subtotal TOTAL*

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

7.6%

3.4%

3.1%

2.3%

4.5%

0 8 1 0

0.0% 88.9% 11.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 1 0

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 12 4 0

0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

75.4%

70.7%

64.6%

76.7%

258

72.1%

1 63 23 2

1.1% 70.8% 25.8% 2.2% 100.0%

10 21 10 0

24.4% 51.2% 24.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 33 29 0

0.0% 53.2% 46.8% 0.0% 100.0%

33 12 19 2

50.0% 18.2% 28.8% 3.0% 100.0%

44 129 81 4

17.1% 50.0% 31.4% 1.6% 100.0%

0.8%

8.6%

2.1%

7.0%

3.9%

0 1 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 5 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 3 2 1

0.0% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0%

0 11 2 1

0.0% 78.6% 14.3% 7.1% 100.0%

52.5%

41.4%

50.0%

52.3%

179

50.0%

1 43 16 2

1.6% 69.4% 25.8% 3.2% 100.0%

8 10 6 0

33.3% 41.7% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 23 25 0

0.0% 47.9% 52.1% 0.0% 100.0%

28 7 9 1

62.2% 15.6% 20.0% 2.2% 100.0%

37 83 56 3

20.7% 46.4% 31.3% 1.7% 100.0%

22.0%

20.7%

12.5%

17.4%

18.2%

0 19 7 0

0.0% 73.1% 26.9% 0.0% 100.0%

2 6 4 0

16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 8 4 0

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 2 8 0

33.3% 13.3% 53.3% 0.0% 100.0%

7 35 23 0

10.8% 53.8% 35.4% 0.0% 100.0%

16.9%

25.9%

32.3%

20.9%

23.5%

0 14 6 0

0.0% 70.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 3 5 2

33.3% 20.0% 33.3% 13.3% 100.0%

1 11 18 1

3.2% 35.5% 58.1% 3.2% 100.0%

14 2 1 1

77.8% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 100.0%

20 30 30 4

23.8% 35.7% 35.7% 4.8% 100.0%

118

100.0%

358

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=111)

Percentage

9.0

25.2

37.8

27.9

18.9

9.4

34.0

37.7

Manhattan (N=92)

30.4

8.7

23.9

37.0

39.5

19.8

21.0

19.8

Remand

Queens (N=81)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=53)

ROR

1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

Citywide (N=337)

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

23.7

16.9

29.4

30.0

-51-

-52-

Table 4c Release Status by Charge at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

Queens %

CITYWIDE N %

8.1%

3.8%

3.3%

2.5%

4.7%

0 1 0 8

0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 88.9% 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%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 1 1 14

0.0% 6.3% 6.3% 87.5% 100.0%

73.9%

75.5%

64.1%

77.8%

244

72.4%

8 19 37 18

9.8% 23.2% 45.1% 22.0% 100.0%

7 5 15 13

17.5% 12.5% 37.5% 32.5% 100.0%

17 6 17 19

28.8% 10.2% 28.8% 32.2% 100.0%

20 14 17 12

31.7% 22.2% 27.0% 19.0% 100.0%

52 44 86 62

21.3% 18.0% 35.2% 25.4% 100.0%

0.9%

9.4%

2.2%

6.2%

3.9%

0 0 1 0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 2 2

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4 0 1 0

80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 4 4

30.8% 7.7% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%

52.3%

45.3%

50.0%

53.1%

171

50.7%

8 12 26 12

13.8% 20.7% 44.8% 20.7% 100.0%

6 3 8 7

25.0% 12.5% 33.3% 29.2% 100.0%

15 5 14 12

32.6% 10.9% 30.4% 26.1% 100.0%

14 13 8 8

32.6% 30.2% 18.6% 18.6% 100.0%

43 33 56 39

25.1% 19.3% 32.7% 22.8% 100.0%

20.7%

20.8%

12.0%

18.5%

17.8%

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

0 7 10 6

0.0% 30.4% 43.5% 26.1% 100.0%

1 1 5 4

9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4% 100.0%

2 1 3 5

18.2% 9.1% 27.3% 45.5% 100.0%

2 1 8 4

13.3% 6.7% 53.3% 26.7% 100.0%

5 10 26 19

8.3% 16.7% 43.3% 31.7% 100.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

18.0%

20.8%

32.6%

19.8%

22.8%

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

2 8 5 5

10.0% 40.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%

3 0 2 6

27.3% 0.0% 18.2% 54.5% 100.0%

11 2 5 12

36.7% 6.7% 16.7% 40.0% 100.0%

12 2 0 2

75.0% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

28 12 12 25

36.4% 15.6% 15.6% 32.5% 100.0%

111

100.0%

337

100.0%

TOTAL*

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 35 cases: 12 dismissals, 2 transfers to Family Court, 8 bench warrants, and 13 cases missing release status

(N=242)

(N=16)

20.5

Total B Felonies

25.5

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

23 17

(N=74)

Total C or D Felonies

Remand

1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

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

-53-

-54-

Table 4d Median Number of Days From Criminal Court Disposition Through First Supreme Court Appearance By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1999 JO First Supreme Court Appearances

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

39.0

18.5

7.0

12.5

25.5

0 1 0 8

45.0 36.5

0 0 1 1

14.0 23.0

0 0 0 3

7.0

0 0 0 2

12.5

0 1 1 14

45.0 14.0 25.5

29.5

13.0

7.5

13.0

242

16.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

8 19 37 18

20.5 32.0 32.0 32.0

7 5 14 13

2.0 15.0 15.5 8.0

17 6 17 18

7.0 12.0 7.0 8.0

16 15 20 12

9.5 14.0 1.0

48 45 88 61

9.0 17.0 20.5 14.0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

27.0

5.0

7.0

8.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

2 8 5 5

30.5 32.0 27.0 25.0

3 0 1 6

14.0 5.0

10 2 5 12

8.0 7.0 14.0 7.0

12 2 0 1

27 12 11 24

3.0 23.0 17.0 7.0

111

29.0

13.0

7.0

6.0

332

15.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 40 cases: 12 dismissals, 2 transfers to Family Court, 8 bench warrants, 13 cases missing release status, and 5 missing number of days

-55Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION V. SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION Citywide, 338 cases of juvenile offenders reached disposition in the Supreme Court in 1999, more than a third more than the 247 disposed in the upper court in 1998 but fewer than the 361 disposed in 1997. Borough comparisons in the volume of cases disposed in 1999 and 1998 in the upper courts show that more cases reached disposition in each borough except the Bronx, which showed a sharp decline from 84 juvenile cases in 1998 to only 53 in 1999. While Bronx dispositions accounted for a third of the dispositions for juvenile cases citywide in 1998, they account for barely 16 percent of the citywide total in 1999. The charge composition of cases at disposition in Supreme Court is very similar to the charge compositions examined at other milestones in this report. More than half of the cases involve a charge of first degree robbery, a decrease from nearly 70 percent in 1998 and from 60 percent in 1997. First and second degree robbery together account for nearly three quarters of the dispositions, again lower than during the previous reporting period (83%). Cases disposed in the Supreme Court were about as likely to involve a murder or attempted murder charge in 1999 as in 1998 (less than five percent combined), and less likely than they were in 1997 (7% combined) or 1996 (9% combined). In 1999, A-felony charges account for three percent of disposed cases (compared to 1% in 1998), B-felony charges account for less than three quarters of disposed cases (compared to 85% in 1998), and C- or Dfelony charges account for nearly a quarter of cases disposed in Supreme Court (compared to only 14% in 1998). In 1998, there were only 34 cases with juvenile defendants disposed at the C- or Dfelony level, all involving charges of second degree robbery. In 1999, there were 78 juvenile cases disposed at the C- or D-charge- severity level, including 73 charged with second degree robbery and five charged with other offenses. 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 ranges from 65 percent in Brooklyn to 74, 79, and 80 percent in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan, respectively. The decrease in the proportion of dispositions with robbery charges is evident in each borough, but is greater in Queens and Manhattan (17 and 16 percentage points, respectively) than in Brooklyn and the Bronx (5 and 3 percentage points, respectively). After robbery charges, the next most frequent type of charge in each borough is assault, which accounts for five percent of dispositions in juvenile cases in 1999 in Manhattan, nine percent in the Bronx, ten percent in Queens and fifteen percent in Brooklyn. Rape and sodomy charges account for more dispositions in Brooklyn (10%) than in other boroughs where these charges are rare or absent, as they have been in previous years. Exhibit 5B indicates that, once a JO case is filed in Supreme Court, the conviction rate is quite high: Overall, 83 percent of JO cases disposed in the upper court during the reporting period were convictions, down from 87 percent in 1998. The conviction rates in Manhattan (88%) and Queens (86%) were particularly high compared to the Bronx (79%) and Brooklyn (80%) but were much higher in 1998 (94% for Manhattan and 96% for Queens). The volume of cases disposed in the Supreme Court in the four boroughs in 1999 is too low to permit comparisons of conviction rates by charge particularly because more than half of the disposed cases show first degree robbery as the disposition charge. In general, the conviction rate is higher for juvenile cases disposed at the B-felony level than for those disposed at lesser charge severity levels.

-56Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

Among juvenile cases disposed with first degree robbery charges, borough differences in conviction rates are minimal, ranging from 89 to 92 percent. As shown in Exhibit 5C, with the detailed information presented in Table 5c, more than half (56%) 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 lower than the nearly two thirds of juveniles released at disposition in 1998, but higher than the release rates in 1995, 1996 or 1997, which ranged between 47 and 55 percent. The juveniles secured release on bail (15%) or on recognizance (41%) pending additional appearances in the Family Court or return to Supreme Court for sentencing. Juveniles were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d at disposition in 51 percent of the cases that reached disposition in the previous reporting period. Juveniles in the cases disposed in the Supreme Court during the reporting period were less likely to secure release in the Bronx (50%, down from 64% in 1998), Queens (53%, down from 70% in 1998) or Brooklyn (55%, 54% in 1998) than in Manhattan (67%, 70% in 1998). Release on recognizance considered alone was nearly twice as frequent in Manhattan (62%) as in the other boroughs where ROR rates ranged from 32 to 35 percent. Release on bail remained infrequent in Manhattan in 1999, occurring in only three disposed cases. In the other boroughs, nearly a fifth of the juveniles were released on bail at disposition. 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 severity level. The most striking finding is that not all JO cases are disposed in the JO Parts: citywide, the proportion was about seven of every ten (72%), up from 59 percent in 1998 and 63 percent in 1997. This varied rather substantially by borough, with the highest proportion disposed in the JO Part in Manhattan (93%), followed by Brooklyn (85%), compared to 66 percent in the Bronx and only 38 percent in Queens. The lower proportions 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 overall increase in the use of the JO Parts reflects the increase that occurred in the Bronx, from only 31 percent of dispositions for juvenile cases in 1998 to 66 percent in 1999. This increase in juveniles cases disposed in JO Parts in the Bronx seems to reflect a decline in the use of SCIs in that borough. The borough differences in the proportions of juvenile cases disposed in JO Parts may also reflect court and district attorney policies regarding particular types of cases, and perhaps the presence of adult codefendants, information that 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. It seems that the conviction rate in non-JO Parts was particularly high due to the inclusion of so many SCI cases, which imply that the plea is already entered, in the non-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) and the 1999 conviction rates were higher in the JO Parts (86%) than in the non-JO Parts (79%). The median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition are presented in Exhibits 5E and 5F. In general, the median number of appearances (23) and days (239) was very high for the small number of cases (13) disposed at the Afelony level. The median number of appearances and the median number of days were lower for cases with B-felony disposition charges (7 appearances and 94 days), and lower still for cases with C- or D-

-57Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

felony disposition charges (5 appearances and 60 days). The median number of appearances was one greater and the median number of days was about a month and a half longer in 1999 than in 1998. The citywide increase in the median number of appearances and the median number of days to disposition in Supreme Court again mask borough differences. It took an average of only one appearance to reach disposition in Queens (where more than half of the cases were disposed at the first appearance in Supreme Court, Exhibit 4B), six in the Bronx, and nine in Brooklyn and Manhattan. The average number of appearances was the same in 1999 as in 1998 in Queens, decreased slightly in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and increased in the Bronx from only one appearance in 1998 to a median of six in 1999. Cases that require only one appearance from the first appearance in Supreme Court to disposition are, of course, the SCI cases in which, by definition, the plea is entered at the first appearance. The sharp increase in the Bronx in the number of appearances to reach disposition reflects the decrease in the use of SCIs in that borough. Similarly, the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through disposition ranged from no days (reflecting defendants who plead guilty at the first appearance) in Queens, to 97 days in Brooklyn, 105 days in the Bronx, and 127 days in Manhattan. The average number of days was the same in 1999 as in 1998 in Queens, and differed by little more than a week in Brooklyn and three and half weeks in Manhattan, while the average in the Bronx increased by more than three months. Citywide, juvenile cases took an average of three months to be disposed in upper court in 1999, compared to only a month and a half during the previous reporting period. 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. Apart from the thirteen juvenile cases disposed with A-felony charges, all of which involved juveniles who were remanded and showed long average length of case, the number of appearances was greater for cases with defendants who were held on bail, followed by those with defendants who were remanded with no bail set, than for other juveniles. Cases with defendants charged with B felonies, for example, required an average of only five appearances in upper court to reach disposition if the juvenile was released on bail or on recognizance, compared to nine appearances if the juvenile was held on bail, and nearly eight appearances if the juvenile was remanded. 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 median 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-charge-severity category examined. Again, this finding probably reflects the 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 cases in the JO Parts reached the upper court primarily through indictment, while the cases in the Non-JO Parts include all of the SCI cases. Defendants in SCI cases usually plead guilty to felony charges at their last appearance in the lower court, which also serves as the first appearance in the upper court. The average number of Supreme Court appearances for juvenile offender cases disposed in a JO Part with a B-felony disposition charge was nine, compared to a median of only one appearance for similar cases disposed elsewhere; the average number of days from the first Supreme Court appearance through disposition was 112 compared to a median of zero days for similarly-charged cases, including SCI cases, in non-JO Parts. At the C- or D-felony disposition charge level, the differences were

-58Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

comparable: It took an average of six appearances and three months longer to reach disposition in the JO Parts than in non-JO Parts.

-59-

Exhibit 5A.1 Charge at Supreme Court Disposition Citywide: 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Robbery 1 52.0%

Murder 2 3.0%

Att. Murder 2 1.2%

Assault 1 10.4% Robbery 2 21.6%

Other* 11.8%

(N=338)

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=115)

Percentage

6.1

47.0

18.3

14.8

13.9

Murder 2

1.9

52.8

20.8

9.4

15.1

Manhattan (N=81)

Juvenile Offenses Robbery 1 Robbery 2

*Includes other A, B, C and D felonies

Bronx (N=53)

Att. Murder 2

1.2 1.2

54.3

25.9

4.9

12.3

Assault 1

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

Queens (N=89)

Other*

2.2 2.2

56.2

22.5

10.1

6.7

-60-

115

21 1 0 1

0 54 17 1 3 8 0 2 0 0

7 0 0

100.0%

91.3% 4.3% 0.0% 4.3% 95.7%

20.0%

0.0% 63.5% 20.0% 1.2% 3.5% 9.4% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

73.9%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

6.1%

Brooklyn N % N

11 0 0 1

1 28 5 0 2 1 0 3 1 0

0 0 0

100.0%

91.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 91.7%

22.6%

2.4% 68.3% 12.2% 0.0% 4.9% 2.4% 0.0% 7.3% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

77.4%

0.0%

21 1 1 0

1 44 4 0 2 1 0 3 1 0

1 1 0

100.0%

91.3% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 95.7%

28.4%

1.8% 78.6% 7.1% 0.0% 3.6% 1.8% 0.0% 5.4% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

69.1%

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.5%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N % N

20 0 0 0

2 50 9 4 0 0 0 2 0 0

2 0 0

100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

22.5%

3.0% 74.6% 13.4% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

75.3%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2.2%

Queens %

10 1 0

338

73 2 1 2

4 176 35 5 7 10 0 10 2 0

100.0%

93.6% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 96.2%

23.1%

1.6% 70.7% 14.1% 2.0% 2.8% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

73.7%

90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%

3.3%

CITYWIDE %

249

TOTAL

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

TOTAL C OR D 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 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Table 5a

-61-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=115)

Percentage

80.0

20.0

Manhattan (N=81)

87.7

12.3

Queens (N=89)

86.5

13.5

* Other includes Transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

Bronx (N=53)

79.2

20.8

Disposition Conviction Other*

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Exhibit 5B Supreme Court Disposition by Borough:

Citywide (N=338)

83.4

16.6

-62-

-63-

Table 5b Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: 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 OR D FELONIES: Conviction Other* Subtotal TOTAL

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

6.1%

6 1

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

0 0

73.9%

71 14

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0

0.0%

Queens %

2.5%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 2

77.4%

69.1%

34 7

82.9% 17.1% 100.0%

49 7

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

1.9%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2%

CITYWIDE N % 11

3.3%

7 4

63.6% 36.4% 100.0%

75.3%

249

73.7%

60 7

89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

214 35

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

1.2%

2.2%

1.2%

0 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 1

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

1 3

25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

47.0%

52.8%

54.3%

56.2%

176

52.1%

49 5

90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

25 3

89.3% 10.7% 100.0%

40 4

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

46 4

92.0% 8.0% 100.0%

160 16

90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

27.0%

22.6%

13.6%

16.9%

20.4%

22 9

71.0% 29.0% 100.0%

9 3

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

9 2

81.8% 18.2% 100.0%

13 2

86.7% 13.3% 100.0%

53 16

76.8% 23.2% 100.0%

20.0%

22.6%

28.4%

22.5%

23.1%

15 8

65.2% 34.8% 100.0%

8 4

66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

21 2

91.3% 8.7% 100.0%

17 3

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

61 17

78.2% 21.8% 100.0%

115

100.0%

338

100.0%

Other includes transfers to Family Court and dismissals.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=95)

Percentage

34.7

18.9

8.4

37.9

32.5

17.5

7.5

42.5

Manhattan (N=69)

62.3

4.3

5.8

27.5

32.9

19.7

2.6

44.7

Remand

Queens (N=76)

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

Bronx (N=40)

ROR

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

Citywide (N=280)

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

40.7

15.4

6.1

37.9

-64-

-65-

Table 5c Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Disposition by Disposition Charge by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL 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)

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

7.4%

0 0 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

75.8%

22 16 7 27

30.6% 22.2% 9.7% 37.5% 100.0%

0.0%

0 0 0 0

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

1.4%

2.6%

3.6%

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 10

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

80.0%

69.6%

76.3%

210

75.0%

10 6 2 14

31.3% 18.8% 6.3% 43.8% 100.0%

35 2 1 10

72.9% 4.2% 2.1% 20.8% 100.0%

13 13 2 30

22.4% 22.4% 3.4% 51.7% 100.0%

80 37 12 81

38.1% 17.6% 5.7% 38.6% 100.0%

0.0%

1.3%

0.4%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0

51.6%

57.5%

58.0%

57.9%

156

55.7%

18 10 5 16

36.7% 20.4% 10.2% 32.7% 100.0%

8 4 1 10

34.8% 17.4% 4.3% 43.5% 100.0%

30 1 1 8

75.0% 2.5% 2.5% 20.0% 100.0%

11 12 2 19

25.0% 27.3% 4.5% 43.2% 100.0%

67 27 9 53

42.9% 17.3% 5.8% 34.0% 100.0%

24.2%

22.5%

11.6%

17.1%

18.9%

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

4 6 2 11

17.4% 26.1% 8.7% 47.8% 100.0%

2 2 1 4

22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 100.0%

5 1 0 2

62.5% 12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

2 1 0 10

15.4% 7.7% 0.0% 76.9% 100.0%

13 10 3 27

24.5% 18.9% 5.7% 50.9% 100.0%

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

16.8%

20.0%

29.0%

21.1%

21.4%

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

11 2 1 2

68.8% 12.5% 6.3% 12.5% 100.0%

3 1 1 3

37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 100.0%

8 1 3 8

40.0% 5.0% 15.0% 40.0% 100.0%

12 2 0 2

75.0% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

34 6 5 15

56.7% 10.0% 8.3% 25.0% 100.0%

100.0%

280

100.0%

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand Subtotal OTHER B FELONIES

TOTAL*

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. Excludes 32 dismissals as well as 26 cases missing release status at disposition.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=115)

Percentage

85.2

14.8

Bronx (N=53)

66.0

34.0

Manhattan (N=81)

92.6

7.4

Court Part JO Part Non-JO Part

Queens (N=89)

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

38.2

61.8

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

Citywide (N=338)

71.6

28.4

-66-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

33.3

5.3 6.9

16.4

1.6

(N=249)

Non-JO Part

82.0

Total B Felonies

JO Part

87.8

(N=11)

Non-JO Part

100.0

Disposition Dismissed Transferred to FC

Total A Felonies

JO Part

66.7

Percent

Convicted

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

10.4 6.3

16.7

13.3

Non-JO Part

70.0

(N=78)

Total C or D Felonies

JO Part

83.3

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

-67-

-68-

Table 5d Supreme Court Disposition by Court Part by Charge at Disposition by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

6.1%

3 0 1 4

75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

0.0%

Queens %

2.5%

0 0 0

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

73.9%

77.4%

65 8 3 76

85.5% 10.5% 3.9% 100.0%

23 3 3 29

79.3% 10.3% 10.3% 100.0%

Conviction Transfer to Family Court Dismissed Subtotal

6 0 3 9

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

11 0 1 12

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

20.0%

14 3 1 18

2.2%

CITYWIDE N % 11

3.3%

4 0 2 6

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

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

2 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

69.1%

75.3%

249

73.7%

48 1 3 52

92.3% 1.9% 5.8% 100.0%

29 1 1 31

93.5% 3.2% 3.2% 100.0%

165 13 10 188

87.8% 6.9% 5.3% 100.0%

91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

1 0 3 4

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 100.0%

32 1 3 36

88.9% 2.8% 8.3% 100.0%

50 1 10 61

82.0% 1.6% 16.4% 100.0%

22.6%

28.4%

22.5%

23.1%

77.8% 16.7% 5.6% 100.0%

3 0 3 6

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

20 0 1 21

95.2% 0.0% 4.8% 100.0%

3 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

40 3 5 48

83.3% 6.3% 10.4% 100.0%

1 4 0 5

20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 1 6

83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

1 0 1 2

50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

14 0 3 17

82.4% 0.0% 17.6% 100.0%

21 4 5 30

70.0% 13.3% 16.7% 100.0%

115

100.0%

338

100.0%

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

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

(N=13)

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Days 23

ROR

(N=214)

Total B Felonies

9 7.5

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

7.5

(N=80)

Total C or D Felonies

4.5

Remand

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-69-

-70-

Table 5e Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances From First Appearance Through Disposition By Release Status and Charge Severity at First Appearance by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

19.0

44.0

25.0

23.0

0 0 0 7

19.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

44.0

0 0 0 4

25.0

0 0 0 13

23.0

9.0

7.5

11.0

1.0

214

7.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

11 17 35 14

9.0 7.0 8.0 11.5

9 4 11 12

1.0 6.0 11.0 8.5

11 1 15 15

13.0 7.0 11.0 9.0

13 17 16 13

1.0 1.0 8.5 1.0

44 39 77 54

5.0 5.0 9.0 7.5

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

5.0

3.0

9.0

1.0

5.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

5 5 5 6

5.0 3.0 5.0 10.0

4 0 3 4

9.5 5.0 1.0

13 1 7 10

9.0 15.0 9.0 7.5

12 2 1 2

1.0 1.0 10.0 4.5

34 8 16 22

4.5 3.0 7.5 7.0

105

9.0

6.0

9.0

1.0

307

7.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 31 cases missing release status at the first appearance

100

150

200

250

300

78.5

(N=214)

104

Total B Felonies

(N=13)

239

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Days

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

97.5

(N=80)

Total C or D Felonies

50.5

Remand

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-71-

-72-

Table 5f Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Release Status and Charge Severity at First Supreme Court Appearance by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

231.0

543.5

467.0

239.0

0 0 0 7

231.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2

543.5

0 0 0 4

467.0

0 0 0 13

239.0

97.0

114.5

116.0

214

93.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

11 17 35 14

97.0 113.0 97.0 110.0

9 4 11 12

126.0 140.0 118.0

11 1 15 15

182.0 190.0 112.0 101.0

13 17 16 13

100.0 -

44 39 77 54

77.0 88.0 104.0 78.5

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

63.0

3.0

133.0

60.5

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

5 5 5 6

63.0 50.0 86.0 64.5

4 0 3 4

273.0 105.0 -

13 1 7 10

153.0 140.0 119.0 75.0

12 2 1 2

144.0 67.5

34 8 16 22

50.5 49.0 97.5 35.0

105

97.0

105.0

127.0

307

93.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 31 cases missing release status at the first appearance

(N=249)

Total B Felonies

(N=11)

Total A Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=78)

Total C or D Felonies

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

-73-

-74-

Table 5g Median Number of Supreme Court Appearances from First Appearance Through Disposition By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

19.0

44.0

22.5

19.0

4 3

23.0 18.0

0 0

2 0

44.0 -

0 2

22.5

6 5

23.0 18.0

9.0

8.0

9.0

1.0

249

7.0

76 9

9.0 16.5

29 12

9.0 1.0

52 4

9.5 1.0

31 36

7.0 1.0

188 61

9.0 1.0

5.0

2.0

7.0

1.0

4.0

18 5

7.0 2.0

6 6

11.5 1.0

21 2

7.0 5.0

3 17

3.0 1.0

48 30

7.0 1.0

115

9.0

6.0

9.0

1.0

338

7.0

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

100

150

200

250

300

(N=249)

(N=11)

112.5

Total B Felonies

239

Total A Felonies

227.5

Median Number of Days

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

(N=78)

Total C or D Felonies

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

-75-

-76-

Table 5h Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Disposition by Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

231.0

543.5

593.0

234.0

4 3

182.0 239.0

0 0

2 0

543.5 -

0 2

593.0

6 5

227.5 239.0

102.0

126.0

116.0

0.0

249

97.0

75 10

96.5 226.5

29 12

154.0 0.0

52 4

120.5 0.0

31 36

107.0 0.0

187 62

112.5 0.0

63.0

1.5

112.0

0.0

43.0

18 5

72.0 21.0

6 6

130.0 0.0

21 2

112.0 63.5

3 17

33.0 0.0

48 30

77.0 0.0

115

97.0

109.0

119.0

0.0

338

91.0

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

-77Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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 severity category. A total of 254 sentences in the Supreme Court in 1999 were for juvenile offenders, far more than the 158 sentences in 1998 but still fewer than the 345 there were in 1997. The number of sentences for juveniles in Supreme Court increased in three of the four boroughs. Sentence volume more than doubled in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, but declined from 68 to only 48 in the Bronx. While sentences for Bronx juveniles accounted for 43 percent of the citywide volume of sentences for juveniles in 1998, they account for only 19 percent in 1999. Overall, nearly half (48%) of the sentences for juvenile offenders in 1999 were custodial. This includes either imprisonment only (39%) or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;splitâ&#x20AC;? sentence including both imprisonment and probation (9%). The proportion of sentences to imprisonment only was the same as it was in the previous reporting period while the proportion of split sentences is within the range found for 1996 to 1998 (between 6% and 13%). Taken together, sentences for juveniles in 1999 were more likely to include a period of incarceration than they were in 1998 (48%, up from 45% in 1998), but less likely than they were in 1997 or 1996 (52% and 55%, respectively). Borough differences in the types of sentences juveniles receive were large. Sentences for juveniles in Brooklyn were again more likely to be incarcerative (73%), than were sentences in other boroughs. Incarcerative sentences account for half of sentences in the Bronx, nearly four of every ten in Queens, and less than two of every ten in Manhattan. Probation with no incarceration was most common in Manhattan (80%), followed by Queens (59%) and the Bronx (48%), compared to only a quarter of sentences in Brooklyn. As shown in Table 6a, the likelihood of a custodial sanction increased for the more serious conviction charges: All of the sentences for juveniles convicted of an A felony and half of the sentences for juveniles convicted of a B felony included some form of imprisonment, as compared to one third of the sentences for juveniles convicted of a C or D felony. Exhibit 6B.1 compares sentences given to juvenile offenders in 1999 in the JO Parts to those given to juvenile offenders in non-JO Parts, citywide, for different conviction-charge severities. Differences in sentence outcomes are apparent, but the difference is wider at the C- or D-felony conviction-charge level than at the higher charge severities. More than four of every ten sentences for juveniles convicted of a C or D felony in a JO Part, compared to only one of every four of their counterparts convicted in a non-JO Part, received an incarcerative sentence in 1999. At the B-felony level, more than half (54%) of the sentences for juveniles sentenced in JO Parts included imprisonment, compared to only (41%) of sentences for comparable cases in the non-JO Parts. Conversely, sentences in non-JO Parts were more likely to require probation only than were sentences 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 1999 in JO Parts and non-JO Parts showed the differences discussed above. Imprisonment without probation was far more common among the juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts (42%) than among those sentenced in the non-JO Parts (31%), as in previous reports. Split sentences were slightly more frequent in the JO Parts (10%) than in the non-JO Parts (8%), although the difference was wider in 1998. Considered together, the proportion of

-78Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

incarcerative sentences for juveniles was more than ten percentage points higher in the JO- than the non-JO Parts, while the difference was less than six percentage points in 1997. However, these differences seem to be attributable at least in part to differences in the use of JO Parts in the boroughs, rather than simply 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 the Bronx and Queens, SCIs, which are disposed in non-JO Parts, are common, even though the use of SCIs seems to have declined in the Bronx. In 1999, nearly eight of every ten juvenile sentences in a non-JO Part are in the Bronx or Queens. Conversely, Brooklyn and Manhattan account for almost two thirds of the sentences in a JO-Part. The previous report presented comparisons of the types of sentences juveniles receive in JOversus non-JO Parts within the borough of arrest. Analysis was restricted to the Bronx and Brooklyn in 1997 and to only the Bronx in 1998 because these were the only boroughs with substantial numbers of sentences for juveniles in both types of court parts. The citywide volume of sentenced juveniles is higher in 1999 and the distribution of cases across court part within borough has improved slightly. Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens courts have cases in both JO and non-JO Parts. However, there were only twelve sentences for juveniles in non-JO Parts in Brooklyn in 1999, and eleven of these juveniles were sentenced to imprisonment. In contrast, roughly half of the 67 sentences in a JO Part in Brooklyn were to straight imprisonment. In the Bronx and Queens, sentences for juveniles in the non-JO Parts are about half as likely to include imprisonment, as are sentences in the JO Part. 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-charge severity levels, 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. Juveniles sentenced in the JO Parts in 1999 were about as likely to receive YO status as their counterparts who were sentenced in non-JO Parts (84% in the JO Part versus 83% in other parts). Again, the citywide figures mask borough differences and type of court part is strongly related to the use of SCIs, which, as discussed earlier, varies by borough. Again, borough comparisons must be restricted to Queens, the Bronx, and perhaps Brooklyn, because these are the only boroughs with sentences for juveniles in both the JO and non-JO Parts. In Queens and the Bronx, the non-JO Parts were more likely to grant YO status than was the JO Part. In both Queens and the Bronx, almost all of the juveniles sentenced in the non-JO parts were granted YO status, compared to only 86 percent of those sentenced in the JO Parts in the Bronx and only 70 percent of those sentenced in JO Parts in Queens. Conversely, in Brooklyn, most (83%) of the juveniles sentenced in the JO Part received YO status, compared to only four of the twelve sentenced in a non-JO Part. Exhibits 6D and 6E give the median number of appearances and days from the first appearance in Supreme Court through sentencing in 1999 for each of the conviction-charge severity categories, separately by release status at conviction. Overall, the juveniles sentenced in Supreme Court in 1999

-79Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

appeared a median of twelve times in Supreme Court, and a median of 222 days elapsed between the date of the first appearance and sentencing. Length of case was shorter in 1998 when the median number of appearances was nine and cases took half as many days to reach sentencing. In 1999, it took longer for sentences at the B-felony level, in terms of number of appearances and number of days (12 appearances and 224 days) than for sentences for C- or D-felonies (11 appearances and 177 days). It is difficult to summarize length of case (either by median number of appearances or median number of days) by release status at conviction and conviction-charge severity because of the small numbers of cases in many categories. Only for the convictions at the B-felony level are there ten or more juveniles in each release status category. Among cases with B-felony conviction charges, those with juveniles who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d at disposition took longer to reach sentencing in terms of median number of days elapsed (266 days) than did those with juveniles who posted bail or were detained (under 200 days). In terms of the number of appearances, however, the cases with juveniles who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d required a median of 14 appearances to reach conviction at the B-felony level, compared to 13.5 for the small number with juveniles detained on bail at conviction, 12 for those where the juveniles were remanded with no bail set, and only 6.5 appearances where the juveniles were released on bail. The borough differences in length of case, even within charge and release status, however, are far more striking than the citywide differences. Juvenile cases reached sentencing in Queens much more quickly (5 appearances, 70 days) than did the defendants in other boroughs. It took a median of ten appearances (208 days) in the Bronx, a median of 15 appearances (249 days) in Brooklyn and 16 appearances (392 days) in Manhattan. The sequence of the boroughs in speed of case processing is similar to the pattern shown in 1998 and 1997. However, the changes in length of case were not distributed equally across the boroughs. Cases in Brooklyn took the same average number of appearances but more days to reach sentencing in 1999 than in 1998. Cases in Queens required an average of two additional appearances in 1999 than in 1998, and more than a month longer. In the Bronx, cases took and average of three and half more appearances four more months to reach sentencing in 1999 than in 1998. In Manhattan, on the other hand, the decrease was large. In 1998, only fifteen sentences were given in juvenile cases, and they required an average of 30 appearances and 21 months. The 47 sentences in juvenile cases in 1999 required only 16 appearances and an average of only thirteen months elapsed from the first appearance in the upper court to the date of sentencing. 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. The median number of appearances and median 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 14 appearances and 256 days in the JO Parts and six appearances and 70 days in the non-JO Parts. For those sentenced for C or D felonies, it took 15 appearances and 297 days in the JO Parts, compared to four appearances and only 44 days in the nonJO 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.

-80Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

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 median number of days from arraignment to disposition in Criminal Court do not show higher medians 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 ten juvenile cases sentenced on B-felony charges in the non-JO Parts took longer than those sentenced in the JO Parts (a median of 22 appearances versus 14 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 court-specific.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brooklyn (N=79)

Percentage

59.5

13.9

25.3

1.3

Bronx (N=48)

Imprisonment

41.7

8.3

47.9

2.1

Manhattan (N=49)

18.4

79.6

2.0

Sentence Imp. and Probation

Queens (N=78)

Probation

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

Exhibit 6A Supreme Court Sentence by Borough:

28.2

10.3

59.0

2.6

Other

Citywide (N=254)

38.6

9.1

50.4

2.0

-81-

-82-

Table 6a Supreme Court Sentence by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan % N %

TOTAL A FELONIES:

5.1%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal

4 0 0 4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

TOTAL B FELONIES:

73.4%

83.3%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

34 10 13 1

58.6% 17.2% 22.4% 1.7% 100.0%

17 4 18 1

42.5% 10.0% 45.0% 2.5% 100.0%

1.3%

0.0%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Subtotal

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

ROBBERY 1: (160.15)

48.1%

62.5%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

22 8 7 1

57.9% 21.1% 18.4% 2.6% 100.0%

14 4 11 1

46.7% 13.3% 36.7% 3.3% 100.0%

OTHER B FELONIES

24.1%

Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal

11 2 6 0

57.9% 10.5% 31.6% 0.0% 100.0%

ATT. MURDER 2: (110-125.25)

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: Imprisonment Imp. and Probation Probation Other Subtotal TOTAL

0.0%

Queens %

CITYWIDE %

1.3%

2.0%

1 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

65.3%

76.9%

190

74.8%

4 0 27 1

12.5% 0.0% 84.4% 3.1% 100.0%

20 7 31 2

33.3% 11.7% 51.7% 3.3% 100.0%

75 21 89 5

39.5% 11.1% 46.8% 2.6% 100.0%

0.0%

1.3%

0.8%

1 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

59.2%

64.1%

147

57.9%

2 0 26 1

6.9% 0.0% 89.7% 3.4% 100.0%

14 5 29 2

28.0% 10.0% 58.0% 4.0% 100.0%

52 17 73 5

35.4% 11.6% 49.7% 3.4% 100.0%

20.8%

6.1%

11.5%

16.1%

3 0 7 0

30.0% 0.0% 70.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

5 2 2 0

55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 0.0% 100.0%

21 4 16 0

51.2% 9.8% 39.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21.5%

16.7%

34.7%

21.8%

23.2%

9 1 7 0

52.9% 5.9% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 5 0

37.5% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 12 0

29.4% 0.0% 70.6% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 15 0

5.9% 5.9% 88.2% 0.0% 100.0%

18 2 39 0

30.5% 3.4% 66.1% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

254

100.0%

0 0 0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11.8

37.5

43.4

2.2

9.3 3.7

Probation

(N=190)

Non-JO Part

31.5

(N=5)

JO Part

42.6

55.6

Total B Felonies

Non-JO Part

100.0

Total A Felonies

JO Part

100.0

Percent

Imprisonment

Sentence Imp. and Probation

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

2.6

59.0

5.0

Non-JO Part

20.0

75.0

(N=59)

Total C or D Felonies

JO Part

38.5

Other

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

-83-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part

91.7

8.3

(N=67) (N=12)

JO Part

Brooklyn

53.7

16.4

28.4

1.5

Percentage

(N=29)

JO Part

26.3

5.3

63.2

(N=19)

Non JO Part

Bronx

55.2

10.3

34.5

5.3

Imprisonment

50.0

(N=47)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

17.0

80.9

2.1

Sentence Imp. and Probation

(N=34)

JO Part

(N=44)

Non JO Part

15.9

11.4

70.5

2.3

Other

Queens

44.1

8.8

44.1

2.9

Probation

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

Non JO Part

31.2

7.8

58.4

2.6

(N=177) (N=77)

JO Part

Citywide

42.4

9.6

46.3

1.7

-84-

-85Table 6b Supreme Court Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

5.1%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 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 0 0

1 0 0 0 1

TOTAL B FELONIES:

73.4%

83.3%

65.3%

25 10 12 1 48

52.1% 20.8% 25.0% 2.1% 100.0%

14 3 9 0 26

53.8% 11.5% 34.6% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 26 1 31

9 0 1 0 10

90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 1 9 1 14

21.4% 7.1% 64.3% 7.1% 100.0%

21.5%

9 1 7 0 17

52.9% 5.9% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%

1.3%

CITYWIDE N % 5

2.0%

2 0 0 0 2

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 0 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

76.9%

190

74.8%

12.9% 0.0% 83.9% 3.2% 100.0%

15 3 12 1 31

48.4% 9.7% 38.7% 3.2% 100.0%

58 16 59 3 136

42.6% 11.8% 43.4% 2.2% 100.0%

0 0 1 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 4 19 1 29

17.2% 13.8% 65.5% 3.4% 100.0%

17 5 30 2 54

31.5% 9.3% 55.6% 3.7% 100.0%

16.7%

34.7%

21.8%

23.2%

2 0 1 0 3

66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 12 0 16

25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 3 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 1 23 0 39

38.5% 2.6% 59.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 3 0 5

40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 1 12 0 14

7.1% 7.1% 85.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 15 0 20

20.0% 5.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0%

254

100.0%

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

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

0 0 0 0 79

100.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

17.6

Non-JO Part

14.8

(N=190)

JO Part

50.7

82.4

85.2

(N=5)

100.0

Total B Felonies

Non-JO Part

100.0

Not Youthful Offender

Total A Felonies

JO Part

Percent

Youthful Offender

1999 JO First Supreme Court Sentences

5.1

10.0

Non-JO Part

90.0

(N=59)

Total C or D Felonies

JO Part

73.2

94.9

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

-86-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non JO Part (N=12)

(N=67)

33.3

66.7

JO Part

Brooklyn

83.6

16.4

Percentage

(N=29)

JO Part

94.7

5.3

(N=19)

Non JO Part

Bronx

86.2

13.8

50.0

(N=47)

JO Part

(N=2)

Non JO Part

Manhattan

93.6

6.4

Non JO Part

93.2

6.8

(N=34) (N=44)

JO Part

Queens

70.6

29.4

Conditions of Sentence Youthful Offender Not Youthful Offender

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

84.2

15.8

Non JO Part

83.1

16.9

(N=177) (N=77)

JO Part

Citywide

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

-87-

-88-

Table 6c Supreme Court Conditions of Sentence by Court Part by Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N %

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N % 0.0%

0.0%

Queens %

5.1%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 0

0 1 1

73.4%

83.3%

65.3%

40 8 48

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

22 4 26

84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

29 2 31

4 6 10

40.0% 60.0% 100.0%

13 1 14

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

21.5%

16 1 17

94.1% 5.9% 100.0%

1.3%

CITYWIDE N % 5

2.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 3 3

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

76.9%

190

74.8%

93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

21 10 31

67.7% 32.3% 100.0%

112 24 136

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

1 0 1

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28 1 29

96.6% 3.4% 100.0%

46 8 54

85.2% 14.8% 100.0%

16.7%

34.7%

21.8%

23.2%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 1 16

93.8% 6.3% 100.0%

3 0 3

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

37 2 39

94.9% 5.1% 100.0%

5 0 5

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 1

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13 1 14

92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

18 2 20

90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

100.0%

254

100.0%

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

0 0 0 79

100.0%

Total C or D Felonies (N=57)

(N=185)

Total B Felonies

6.5

13.5

Median Number of Appearances

Remand

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

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-89-

-90-

Table 6d Median Number of Appearances From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

11.0

15.0

0 0 0 4

17.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

11.0

0 0 0 5

15.0

11.5

16.0

7.0

185

12.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

17 8 8 25

16.0 14.5 15.0 14.0

18 3 1 16

13.0 7.0 17.0 11.5

24 3 1 3

16.0 13.0 45.0 15.0

16 12 4 26

5.0 3.0 10.0 10.5

75 26 14 70

14.0 6.5 13.5 12.0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

17.0

5.5

16.0

4.0

11.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

13 1 0 3

15.0 17.0 19.0

3 1 1 3

5.0 9.0 6.0 3.0

8 3 1 4

16.0 20.0 24.0 12.0

12 2 0 2

4.0 4.0 8.0

36 7 2 12

11.0 14.0 15.0 12.0

15.0

10.5

16.0

5.0

247

12.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 7 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

266

(N=57)

177

Total C or D Felonies

179

283.5

(N=185)

195.5

329

Total B Felonies

153

Median Number of Days

Remand

132.5

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

100

200

300

400

ROR

Release Status Bail Set/Made Bail Set/Not Made

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

-91-

-92-

Table 6e Median Number of Days From First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence by Disposition Release Status and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES:

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

203.0

182.0

0 0 0 4

203.0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

182.0

0 0 0 5

182.0

245.5

240.5

392.0

93.0

185

224.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

17 8 8 25

266.0 257.5 230.5 186.0

18 3 1 16

249.0 366.0 192.0 238.0

24 399.0 3 354.0 1 1375.0 3 223.0

16 12 4 26

77.5 47.5 169.0 145.5

75 26 14 70

266.0 153.0 195.5 179.0

TOTAL C OR D FELONIES:

276.0

106.0

370.0

44.0

177.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand

13 1 0 3

296.0 230.0 177.0

3 1 1 3

99.0 329.0 126.0 16.0

8 3 1 4

450.0 476.0 441.0 294.0

12 2 0 2

44.0 45.0 52.5

36 7 2 12

177.0 329.0 283.5 132.5

249.0

207.5

392.0

70.0

247

222.0

ROR Bail Set and Made Bail Set and Not Made Remand TOTAL B FELONIES:

TOTAL*

Note: The numbers in bold are the subtotals for each felony category. * Excludes 7 juveniles for whom release status at disposition was not available.

Total C or D Felonies (N=59)

(N=190)

Total B Felonies

Median Number of Appearances

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

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

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

-93-

-94-

Table 6f Median Number of Appearances from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

17.0

11.0

15.0

2 2

18.0 16.5

0 0

0 1

11.0

2 3

18.0 14.0

15.0

11.5

16.0

7.0

190

12.0

48 10

14.0 22.0

26 14

14.0 4.5

31 1

16.0 15.0

31 29

10.0 5.0

136 54

14.0 6.0

17.0

5.5

16.0

4.0

11.0

17 0

17.0 -

3 5

6.0 3.0

16 1

16.0 10.0

3 14

7.0 4.0

39 20

15.0 4.0

15.0

10.5

16.0

5.5

254

12.0

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

Total C or D Felonies (N=59)

(N=190)

297

Total B Felonies

256.5

Median Number of Days

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

100

200

300

400

Court Part Jo Part Non-Jo Part

1999 JO Supreme Court Dispositions

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

-95-

-96-

Table 6g Median Number of Days from First Supreme Court Appearance Through Sentence By Court Part and Disposition Charge Severity by Borough for 1999 JO Supreme Court Sentences

JUVENILE FELONY OFFENSES TOTAL A FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL B FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL C OR D FELONIES: JO Part Non-JO Part TOTAL

Brooklyn N Median

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N Median N Median

Queens Median

CITYWIDE N Median

203.0

182.0

2 2

156.0 303.5

0 0

0 1

182.0

2 3

156.0 250.0

245.5

260.5

392.0

110.0

190

232.5

48 10

244.0 261.5

26 14

288.0 111.5

31 1

392.0 372.0

31 29

165.0 48.0

136 54

256.5 70.0

276.0

106.0

370.0

44.0

169.0

17 0

276.0 -

3 5

133.0 47.0

16 1

370.0 152.0

3 14

82.0 44.0

39 20

297.0 44.0

249.0

216.0

388.0

70.0

254

222.5

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

-97Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York, 1999 (Second half of FY 1999 through First half of FY 2000; January - December, 1999)

SECTION VII. FAILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES A total of 306 juveniles secured release on recognizance or release on bail in Criminal Court arraignments during the reporting period, a decrease of 21 percent from the previous reporting period. As shown in Exhibit 7A, five percent of these juveniles failed to appear as scheduled for a hearing in Criminal Court during 1999, comparable to the rate in 1998 and lower than the rate in 1997. The failure-to-appear rate presented here includes cases with appearances scheduled in 1999 for juveniles arraigned in 1999 and does not reflect appearances for juveniles arraigned prior to January 1999. 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 a bit higher in 1999 (5%) than it was in 1998 (4%), but still lower than the rate in previous years (1997: 7%, 1996: 7% and 1995: 8%). None of the juveniles released on bail at arraignment failed to appear, but this finding should be viewed cautiously since only so few defendants (29) secure release on bail at Criminal Court arraignment. In 1998, 12 percent of the 24 juveniles released on bail at arraignment missed at least one pretrial hearing in Criminal Court. The FTA rate was particularly low again in Brooklyn where only two of the 126 defendants who were RORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d 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 (13%)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 (13%, compared to 5% in Criminal Court) as well as those released on bail (12%, compared to none in Criminal Court). The combined FTA rate in Supreme Court for juveniles released at the first appearance in the upper court on bail or on ROR was lower than reported for 1998 (16%), but higher than reported for 1997 (10%).

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: 1999 JO Criminal Court Arraignments

No 95.1% Yes 4.9%

(N=306)

0 12

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

331

0 7

0 186

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.6%

1.6% 98.4% 100.0%

38.1%

147

0 11

0 79

0 10

7 40

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

53.7%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6.8%

14.9% 85.1% 100.0%

32.0%

183

0 5

5 113

118

0 4

4 52

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.7%

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

64.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.2%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

30.6%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

162

0 4

1 106

107

0 3

2 46

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.5%

0.9% 99.1% 100.0%

66.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1.9%

4.2% 95.8% 100.0%

29.6%

Queens %

823

0 27

6 484

490

0 29

15 262

277

100.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* The total excludes 11 juveniles citywide for whom the release status set at Criminal Court arraignment was not available.

3.3%

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

59.5%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.5%

5.4% 94.6% 100.0%

33.7%

CITYWIDE N %

TOTAL*

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

REMAND:

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

186

BAIL SET AND MADE

BAIL SET AND NOT MADE

2 124

126

Brooklyn N %

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

ROR:

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS

Failure to Appear as Scheduled in Criminal Court by Criminal Court Arraignment Release Status and Borough for 1999 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: 1999 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Yes 12.7%

No 87.3%

(N=134)

4 24

Yes Warrant Issued No Warrant Issued Subtotal

121

3 7

2 29

5 37

100.0%

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

8.3%

6.5% 93.5% 100.0%

25.6%

11.9% 88.1% 100.0%

34.7%

14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

23.1%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8.3%

4 3

1 19

1 17

0 5

3 7

100.0%

57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

11.7%

5.0% 95.0% 100.0%

33.3%

5.6% 94.4% 100.0%

30.0%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8.3%

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

16.7%

101

2 7

7 27

5 17

3 5

5 23

100.0%

22.2% 77.8% 100.0%

8.9%

20.6% 79.4% 100.0%

33.7%

22.7% 77.3% 100.0%

21.8%

37.5% 62.5% 100.0%

7.9%

17.9% 82.1% 100.0%

27.7%

BOROUGH Bronx Manhattan N % N %

3 6

1 15

2 18

0 17

2 26

100.0%

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

10.0%

6.3% 93.8% 100.0%

17.8%

10.0% 90.0% 100.0%

22.2%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

18.9%

7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

31.1%

Queens %

372

12 23

11 90

101

13 89

102

7 51

10 66

100.0%

34.3% 65.7% 100.0%

9.4%

10.9% 89.1% 100.0%

27.2%

12.7% 87.3% 100.0%

27.4%

12.1% 87.9% 100.0%

15.6%

13.2% 86.8% 100.0%

20.4%

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:

0 10

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 1999 JO Supreme Court Arraignments

Table 7b

-101-

-102-

APPENDIX A JUVENILE OFFENSES

Offense

Penal Law

Felony Class

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

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

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

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

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

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