DNA Testing Burglary, Sex Assault 11

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, INC. NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL USTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

THE INFLUENCE OF CODIS DNA TESTING ON THE ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF BURGLARY AND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN NEW YORK CITY: An Exploratory Study Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow and David J. Hauser Data Analyst With the Assistance of Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC BIOLOGY OF THE NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER

FINAL REPORT June 2011

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 THE DATA ....................................................................................................................4 OVERVIEW OF THE OCME DATA MATCHED TO CJA DATA ..................................6 DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN STUDY ARRESTS .......................................12 TIME BETWEEN INCIDENT, ARREST AND OCME RECEIPT OF MATERIALS .....15 PROSECUTION OF ARRESTS ..................................................................................17 DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN PROSECUTED CASES ...............................22 Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................22 Criminal History.......................................................................................................23 CJA Interview Items and Release Recommendation ..............................................24 ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITIES ..........................................29 COURT CASE PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES .....................................................31 Criminal Court Arraignment.....................................................................................31 Court Outcomes......................................................................................................31 Focus on Convictions and Dismissal/ACD Outcomes.............................................33 Case Processing Times ..........................................................................................36 TESTING THE INFLUENCE OF OCME DATA ON CASE OUTCOMES....................38 Burglary Cases: Conviction status for docketed disposed cases ............................40 Burglary Cases: Charge severity depreciation for convicted cases ........................40 Sexual Assault Cases: Conviction status for docketed disposed cases..................41 Sexual Assault Cases: Charge severity depreciation for convicted cases ..............41 Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis ..............................................................42 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible by the collaborative efforts of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) and the Department of Forensic Biology of the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME).

I am grateful to David J. Hauser for the all of the data, research and methodological skills he contributed, from overseeing all of the data collection and creation of the project data set, to preparing the logistic regression analysis section of this report. Additional data assistance at CJA was provided by Wayne Nehwadowich of the Information Technology Department who provided information from the Agency’s main information system that enhanced our project data set. Raymond Caligiure of the Research Department also hand coded from original data sources some supplemental information to fill in missing data elements for the study cases.

We were fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with three extremely talented professionals at OCME: Mecki Prinz; Jessica Mastroianni; and Mimi Mairs.

Mecki Prinz, Ph.D., OCME Director of the Department of Forensic Biology, and Executive Assistant Jessica Mastroianni, provided an excellent tutorial on their work, and always were responsive to our inquiries about the portion of the data contributed by OCME to this study. Mimi Mairs, OCME Counsel, in combination with CJA’s Counsel Geraldine Ferrara, expeditiously crafted the data-sharing agreement with the necessary protocols to make this joint effort possible. Together Mecki Prinz, Jessica Mastroianni and Mimi Mairs provided detailed and thoughtful review and comments on earlier drafts of this report. While we appreciate all of their efforts, CJA alone is responsible for the design, analysis, conclusions and opinions expressed in this report.

Thanks also are due to Jerome McElroy, CJA’s Executive Director, for his review of the original draft of this report and, as always, to Annie Su, Research Department Administrative Associate, for the production of the final report.

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow and Project Director

1

INTRODUCTION During a criminal investigation the New York City Police Department (NYPD) may collect material potentially containing biological evidence from which one or more DNA profiles might be extracted.

This material is submitted for DNA testing to the

Department of Forensic Biology of the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). If a DNA profile is obtained by OCME it is compared to the known reference samples in the case, which includes any known suspects.

Depending on the origin of the evidence item, the DNA profile may be submitted to the FBI’s CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) database where the results are then compared to the DNA profiles of offenders maintained in the CODIS system.

The

results of this CODIS matching can lead to the identification, arrest and prosecution of individuals, or the exoneration of suspects. A DNA profile is only allowed to be entered and searched against the CODIS database if the item was not collected from a suspect’s person, apartment or car, and has a reasonable expectation to contain the DNA from the true perpetrator.

Once a CODIS profile is uploaded it may result in a database match that has to be confirmed by OCME through a data review process. After the confirmation, OCME informs the NYPD and the appropriate District Attorney’s Office through an electronic DNA Hits notification program. For many cases, the work of OCME ends after this notification or after a report about the testing results has been issued. In selected cases more suspect samples may be submitted, or criminalists may be called to testify in Grand Jury or trial proceedings.

Beyond CODIS matching there are many additional ways in which DNA evidence can be probative in a case. Common examples are that the victim’s blood may be found on a suspect’s clothing, a known suspect can be matched to a crime scene via a direct comparison to a DNA mixture, or that an unknown suspect can be identified via a DNA database search. Since most cases involve more than one item of evidence, an OCME report may have a multitude of different DNA results. In addition, DNA testing can play different roles in the criminal justice system, some of which depend on whether the crime was committed by someone who was a stranger to the victim, e.g. many

2

burglaries, or if the crime occurred between people known to each other, e.g. many assaults.

OCME has developed a research project to examine the impact of its work on arrests and prosecution, including the effect of testing biological evidence. The New York City Criminal Justice Coordinator’s Office (CJC) requested that the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) assist in the analysis of the CODIS DNA testing portion of the OCME research project.

CJA is a not-for-profit organization. Working under a contract with the City of New York, CJA’s primary operational mission is to provide pretrial services in the City’s adult criminal court system.

In order to provide these services, CJA maintains a

computerized

that

database

contains

information

about

arrest

and

arrestee

characteristics, and case processing and court outcomes for defendants eligible for prosecution in the adult criminal courts, who either are held pending Criminal Court arraignment (“summary arrests”) or who are issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) after an arrest.

In addition to its operational activities CJA uses its database for

research purposes.

CJA agreed to work with OCME to analyze arrest and defendant characteristics, and case processing and court outcomes, for a set of arrests in two crime categories: burglary and sexual assault. OCME identified burglary and sexual assault cases in which it performed DNA testing during calendar year 2008. It was then requested that the NYPD provide all arrest numbers associated with these crime complaints, if any.

CJA in turn linked these arrest numbers to its information system. In addition to arrest numbers, OCME also provided information about whether its testing led to any CODIS profiles being obtained, and the date on which the report was completed.

From the data set created for this study CJA examined the characteristics of the burglary and sexual assault arrests and defendants, and case processing and court outcomes for prosecuted cases. It conducted this analysis within the framework of exploring the relationship among DNA results obtained from biological evidence and the timing of OCME’s work, with the arrest and prosecution of the burglary and sexual assault arrests. In the final analytic section of this report these items of information were tested in statistical models to determine whether the work of OCME made a

3

statistically significant contribution to prosecution and case outcome decisions when considered along with other variables available from CJA data that might affect these issues.

This analysis is exploratory in nature as more complete information would need to be known about the role of OCME’s work in the study cases to determine causality. For example, it is not possible from the available data to determine if a CODIS profile, if found, matched the arrested person(s), or the strength of other evidence in the cases that led to police, prosecutorial or defense decision making. This study also does not encompass all of the work of OCME in the two studied crime categories, because it focuses only on burglary and sexual assault incidences in which arrests were made.

Another limitation of this research is that the arrests in this study do not represent the full volume of burglary and sexual assault crime incidences that resulted in arrests or prosecuted court cases. Biological evidence is not always recovered and submitted for OCME testing. The framework for this study did not incorporate any comparisons with prosecution rates, or case processing and court outcomes, when arrests for burglary and sexual assault crimes occurred absent biological evidence tested by OCME. It is therefore not possible to determine how representative the characteristics of the study arrests are in comparison with all burglary and sexual assault arrests made within the same time frame as the study data.

Burglary and sexual assault crimes are distinctive and dissimilar types of crimes in many respects. For example, burglary victims frequently are neither immediately aware that the crime has occurred nor have seen the perpetrator. Burglary therefore can be a more difficult type of crime in which to identify the perpetrator(s), often occurring only after a series of crimes with a pattern that leads to an arrest. Police notification of a sexual assault, in comparison, is likely to be more immediate, and victims with some frequency can provide identification of assailants to assist the police investigation. As a result of these and other differences, data are presented throughout this report separately for each of the two crime categories, in addition to reporting on the cases in the aggregate.

4

THE DATA CJA and OCME entered into a data-sharing agreement, with the consent of the NYPD, in which OCME provided a data file containing arrest numbers associated with burglary and sexual assault incidences in which biological evidence was tested by OCME in calendar year 2008.

In addition to arrest numbers, the OCME data set

included: the NYPD complaint number and the corresponding Forensic Biology identification number; the date the material was received by OCME; the date the Forensic Biology report was completed; the crime category of the material (i.e. burglary or sexual assault); and, an indicator of whether or not any CODIS profile was obtained from the tested material.

For sexual assault cases the OCME data also included

information about whether the victim provided any name(s) of the alleged assailant(s).

Among the 587 sexual assault cases an alleged assailant was named in 404 (68.8%) of the data set’s arrests, while 183 (31.2%) of the arrests had no named assailant in the data. However, the person arrested was not necessarily a person named by the victim.

CJA agreed to match the arrest numbers in the OCME data to CJA information and to develop a data set containing a variety of arrest and defendant characteristics. If the arrest was prosecuted in the adult court system, the CJA data set for this project would also contain case processing and court outcome information. In addition to providing more insight into the OCME study cases, the CJA variables became part of the statistical analysis conducted for the project.

After a series of exchanges with OCME staff to verify or correct arrest numbers, the CJA research began with a file of 1,186 unique arrest numbers each of which matched to an arrest number in CJA data.

Among these matched arrests, 595 were

characterized by OCME as burglary offenses and 591 as sexual assaults. For each category’s cases, the arrest charges, and for prosecuted arrests the top charge at Criminal Court arraignment in the CJA data were examined to determine if the charges in the CJA data were reasonably related to the OCME crime category. We found that approximately 88% of all OCME-categorized burglary cases had a top arrest charge found in Penal Law Article 140 (burglary). The remaining arrests included charges such as larceny or possession of stolen property, crimes reasonably related to burglary offenses. Among the sexual assault category cases over 88% had a top arrest charge

5

found in Penal Law Article 130 (sex offenses), and over half these cases had a rape top arrest charge.

CJA relied on existing CJA data sets whenever possible in order to develop its data set for this study. In a few instances the OCME provided arrest numbers matched arrests in CJA’s main computerized information system but were outside the parameters of already existing CJA data sets. When this occurred the requisite items of information needed for this project were hand coded. All prosecuted arrests for which information was obtained were updated to capture adjudicated court outcomes or the status of the case at the most recent court appearance. This information was based on court information contained in CJA’s main computerized information system as of March 9, 2011.

A series of quality control measures were undertaken to make the CJA data set as complete as possible.

For example, in the burglary category we found that some

defendants had multiple arrests on the same date but that the arrest in the OCME data was not always the arrest for which CJA had collected and entered defendant information. When this occurred items of interest, such as criminal conviction history, were hand coded from the arrest for which data were available and manually entered into CJA’s data file for this study. However, it was not always possible to augment the information for all missing items of information.

6

OVERVIEW OF THE OCME DATA MATCHED TO CJA DATA At each crime scene, materials collected that could potentially contain biological evidence are submitted to OCME with the police complaint associated with the incident.

The NYPD complaint number is then given a separate Forensic Biology identification number.

There is a one-to-one relationship between the NYPD complaint and the

Forensic Biology identification numbers. That is, for each NYPD complaint number, there is a single corresponding Forensic Biology number. However, OCME may find more than one DNA profile among the tested material, and more than one person subsequently may be arrested under the same NYPD complaint number.

We examined the number of times there were multiple arrests associated with the NYPD complaint numbers in the study data.

In the process of this analysis we

discovered that there were eleven NYPD complaint numbers in which the same named person had two arrests. In ten of these instances at least one of the arrests was not prosecuted. We excluded one of each of these duplicate arrests of the same person. If one of the arrests was prosecuted and the other not prosecuted, we chose to exclude the not prosecuted arrest. In one instance both arrests had court data and both cases were retained. This resulted in reducing the data set for analysis to 1,176arrests, 589 in the burglary and 587 in the sexual assault category.

These 1,176 arrests were associated with a total of 999 NYPD complaint numbers.

NUMBER OF ARRESTS PER COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 7 Total

Table 1 OCME CRIME CATEGORY SEXUAL ASSAULT BURGLARY CASES CASES 375 81.4 506 94.1 58 12.6 21 3.9 20 4.3 8 1.5 2 0.4 2 0.3 6 1.3 0 0.2 0 1 461

100.0

538

100.0

*TOTAL 881 79 28 4 6 1

88.2 7.9 2.8 0.4 0.6 0.1

999

100.0

*Throughout this report percentages may not total to exactly 100.0% due to rounding.

As can be seen in Table 1 above, most complaints resulted in a single arrest, 81.4% among the burglary category complaints and 94.1% among the sexual assault category

7

complaints. However, in some instances the investigation led to more than one arrest per incident.

When multiple arrests occurred from the same NYPD /complaint

investigation they were more likely to have occurred among the burglary category cases.

Among the 999 NYPD complaint numbers, a CODIS profile was found 54.6% of the time as shown in the far right column of Table 2. A CODIS profile was more likely to have been extracted among the biological evidence tested in the burglary category than in the sexual assault category’s arrests, 64.9% versus 45.7%.

WAS A CODIS PROFILE FOUND? Yes No Total

Table 2 OCME CRIME CATEGORY SEXUAL ASSAULT BURGLARY CASES CASES N % N % 299 64.9 246 45.7 162 35.1 292 54.3 461 100.0 538 100.0

TOTAL N 545 454 999

% 54.6 45.4 100.0

Lastly, we attempted to determine how many defendants were found among the 1,176 arrests.

For this purpose we examined the New York State fingerprint

identification (NYSID) number associated with each defendant’s arrest in the CJA data.

We were unable to determine the exact number of defendants because the NYSID number was not known in 35 of the study arrests.

Among the 1,044 arrests for which there was a NYSID number we found that in 94.1% of arrests a defendant NYSID number appeared only once, as displayed in Table 3. At the other extreme one defendant’s NYSID number appeared in ten separate arrests in the data.

Table 3 FREQUENCY OF NYSID NUMBER Once Twice Three times Four times Five times Six times Ten times Total NYSID number unknown

N

%

982 44 12 2 1 2 1 1044

94.1 4.2 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 100.0

35

-

8

We also were able to determine that when the same defendant’s NYSID number appeared more than once in the OCME data, all arrests fell into the same crime category.

A visual check of the names in the 35 arrests missing a NYSID number persuaded us that each was a different named person.

However, no attempt was made to

determine if the names of these individuals also appeared among the 1,044 arrests with NYSID numbers. Therefore there were no more than 1,079 defendants among the 1,176 arrests although there could be slightly fewer.

What can be learned from these data is that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between an NYPD complaint number and arrests. That is, the same investigation could have led to the arrest of more than one person. In the data for this study each arrest is treated as a separate and unique event even if more than one arrest is associated with the same NYPD complaint number or the same defendant.

In addition, there also was not a one-to-one correspondence between arrests and persons. That is, one person’s NYSID number can and did appear associated with more than just a single arrest in the data. And, there is no way to know from the OCME data whether the DNA profile submitted to CODIS matched the arrested person(s).

Table 4 displays the overall distribution of the 1,176 arrests by year of arrest, and separately for the burglary and for the sexual assault categories. As indicated in this table, although the data file was based on OCME work conducted in calendar year 2008, not all arrests occurred in that year. In both crime categories a small percentage of arrests occurred either prior to 2008 or in calendar year 2010. Arrests in the sexual assault category were more likely to have occurred in 2008 (93.4%) in comparison with the burglary arrests (68.8%); over a fifth of the burglary arrests (23.3%) occurred in calendar year 2009.

9

YEAR OF ARREST

Table 4 BURGLARY ARRESTS SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % N %

TOTAL ARRESTS N %

2006

1

0.2

1

0.2

2

0.2

2007

25

4.2

7

1.2

32

2.7

2008

405

68.8

548

93.4

953

81.0

2009

137

23.3

28

4.8

165

14.0

2010

21

3.6

3

0.5

24

2.0

Total

589

100.0

587

100.0

1176

100.0

Table 5 displays the borough in which the study arrests occurred overall and separately for the burglary and for the sexual assault arrests. Brooklyn contributed about a third of all the study arrests as well as about a third of the arrests in the burglary and in the sexual assault category. Queens’ arrests contributed about a quarter of the overall study arrests, with Queens having the second largest number and percentage of the burglary arrests. Manhattan had the second largest number and percentage of sexual assault arrests, slightly greater than those in Queens in the sexual assault category.

BOROUGH OF ARREST Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx Total

Table 5 BURGLARY ARRESTS N % 194 32.9 112 19.0 135 22.9 44 7.5 104 17.7 589 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 32.5 191 132 22.5 129 22.0 34 5.8 101 17.2 587 100.0

TOTAL ARRESTS N % 385 32.7 244 20.7 264 22.4 78 6.6 205 17.4 1176 100.0

To gauge how representative the volume and borough distributions of the study arrests might be, we examined the number of arrests with burglary as the top arrest charge and the number of arrests with a sexual offense under Penal Law Article 130 as the top arrest charge in calendar years 2008 and 2009. As can be seen in Table 6, the study arrests represented a very tiny percentage of overall burglary and sexual offense arrests in either 2008 or 2009. In addition, the proportional distribution among the

10

boroughs differed from those of the study arrests. Over a third of all burglary arrests in 2008 and in 2009 occurred in the Bronx, in comparison to the burglary study arrests in which only 17.1% of these arrests occurred in the Bronx and over a third were in Brooklyn. The distribution of sexual assault study arrests more closely resembled the sex offense arrests in 2008 and 2009, although Brooklyn was a bit over represented among the study cases.

BOROUGH OF ARREST Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx Total

Table 6 ARREST VOLUME 2008 BURGLARY SEX OFFENSES N % N % 769 26.1 5216 20.9 788 26.7 6372 25.5 706 23.9 3648 14.6 123 4.2 2.9 730 565 19.1 8974 36.0 2951 100.0 24940 100.0

ARREST VOLUME 2009 BURGLARY SEX OFFENSES N % N % 22.8 735 25.9 5717 26.6 736 26.0 6666 3292 13.1 698 24.6 5.3 559 2.2 150 8817 35.2 516 18.2 2835 100.0 25051 100.0

The next table displays the number of arrests in which a CODIS profile was obtained, overall and separately for the burglary and for the sexual assault category arrests. Table 7 shows that a CODIS profile was found in almost three-fifths of the burglary arrests but in less than half of all the sexual assault arrests.

What also became evident from the data was the absence of a one-to-one correspondence between any CODIS profile being found and the prosecution of the arrest. That is, the presence or absence of a DNA profile being submitted to CODIS did not appear to be the sole determinate of whether or not the arrest, if eligible for prosecution in the adult court, was in fact prosecuted, as will be discussed in a later section of this report. There clearly were arrests pursued in the adult court absent the finding of a CODIS DNA profile and, conversely, there were cases not pursued in the adult court even with the finding of a DNA profile. However, one cannot determine from these data whether the absence of a prosecution when a DNA profile was found was due to an exculpatory finding.

11

Table 7 CODIS PROFILE OBTAINED?

BURGLARY ARRESTS N 349 240 589

Yes No Total

% 59.3 40.7 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 271 46.2 316 53.8 587 100.0

TOTAL N 620 556 1176

% 52.7 47.3 100.0

It should be noted that the data in the above table differ somewhat from the similar table shown previously that was based on whether any CODIS profile was obtained on each of the NYPD complaint numbers. For example, a CODIS profile was found in 65% of the 461 burglary complaints for which OCME tested biological evidence, but among the 589 resulting burglary arrest only 59.3% had an identifiable CODIS profile.

Finally, the table below compares the relative severity of the top charge at arrest.

As shown on Table 8, the top arrest charges overwhelmingly were of felony severity, but the distribution among the felony severity classifications differed between the two crime categories. Almost half of all burglary arrests involved a D-felony severity top arrest charge (49.7%).

In comparison, approximately three-fifths of all sexual assaults

involved a top arrest charge of B-felony severity (59.5%).

SEVERITY OF TOP ARREST CHARGE *A felony B felony C felony D felony E felony Subtotal Felony A misdemeanor B misdemeanor

Table 8 BURGLARY N % 0 15 2.5 227 38.6 293 49.7 23 3.9

SEXUAL ASSAULT N % 9 1.5 59.5 349 34 5.8 11.6 68 74 12.6

TOTAL N 9 364 261 361 97

% 0.8 31.0 22.2 30.7 8.2

558

94.7

534

91.0

1092

92.9

31 0

5.3 -

48 5

8.2 0.6

79 5

6.7 0.4

Subtotal Non-felony 31 5.3 53 8.8 84 7.1 Total 589 100.0 587 100.0 1176 100.0 *There is no A-felony severity sexual assault charge so in these arrests a more severe offense such as attempted murder or kidnapping would have been the top arrest charge with the sexual assault charge a secondary charge.

12

DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN STUDY ARRESTS Defendant demographic and criminal history characteristics may affect arrest, case processing and court outcomes. This section provides an overview of these characteristics among the defendants in the two types of study arrests.

Defendants in the study arrests were almost entirely male and minority. ♦ There were only a total of 50 female defendants (4.3%) among all the study arrests, with 41 of the burglary arrests having a female defendant. ♦ Black defendants were proportionately more likely to be found in the sexual assault category arrests (52.6%) than among defendants arrested in the burglary category (36.0%). ♦ Hispanic defendants were proportionately more likely to be found in the burglary category arrests (41.4%) in comparison with their proportion of defendants in the sexual assault category (34.9%). ♦ Among the burglary category arrests 18.2% had White defendants in comparison with only 8.0% of the sexual assault arrests.

Defendants in the study arrests were on average about 30 years of age (mean or mathematical average) with a median (midpoint) age just under 30 years. ♦ Among burglary arrests defendants were only slightly older than the average age among the sexual assault arrests, 31.18 versus 29.93 respectively. ♦ The median age among arrestees in the burglary category also was just slightly older—29 years—than the median age among the arrestees in the sexual assault category—27 years.

CJA staff routinely interviews almost all defendants eligible for prosecution in the adult court system and who are held in custody pending Criminal Court arraignment.

Responses to selected items are used by CJA, in combination with selected criminal history items, to make a release recommendation to the court based on the relative risk of failure to appear (FTA) if the defendant was to be released on recognizance (ROR) in a case continued at Criminal Court arraignment.

13

A review of the DCJS fingerprint NYSID (rap sheet) report is part of the prearraignment interview process. CJA obtains in summary form whether the fingerprint NYSID report associated with the current arrest has other non-sealed adult court criminal justice activity, and whether or not these other items contain convicted cases in which the most serious conviction charge was of misdemeanor severity and whether any convicted cases had a most severe conviction charge of felony severity. Cases adjudicated with Youthful Offender status are not counted as criminal convictions for CJA purposes. In addition, although the CJA database contains information about the arrest and prosecution of persons issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), these defendants are not interviewed by CJA and therefore criminal conviction history is not available for DAT defendants. (However, there were in total only seven DAT arrests in the study, four in the burglary category and three in the sexual assault category.)

Often times a decision to not prosecute occurs prior to the CJA interview.

In

addition, CJA interviewers do not have contact with arrestees younger than 14 not subject to adult court prosecution. Further, criminal history was manually researched for prosecuted arrests of persons held for arraignment when this information was absent for the study arrests, but no supplemental updating was done for not prosecuted study arrests. For these reasons the table that follows shows the percentage distributions only for those arrests for which criminal history information was available.

Table 9 CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY No Convictions, No other arrests on NYSID sheet No Convictions, Other arrests on NYSID sheet Prior adult convictions on NYSID sheet Total Known Criminal History Unknown Total Cases

BURGLARY ARRESTS N %

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N %

TOTAL N

%

65

14.8

228

41.9

293

29.8

107

24.4

131

24.1

238

24.2

266

60.7

185

34.0

451

45.9

438 151 589

100.0 -

544 43 587

100.0 -

982 194 1176

100.0 -

14

What is especially of note in the above illustration is the extent to which defendants in the burglary category had some adult criminal justice activity on the fingerprint NYSID report associated with study arrests. ♌ In over three-fifths of the burglary arrests defendants already had a criminal conviction history at the time of the study arrest, and almost another quarter had some activity other than a conviction on the NYSID report. ♌ In comparison, about 41.9% in the sexual assault category arrests involved defendants with no other arrest on the NYSID report, and only slightly more than a third had criminal conviction histories. Among the burglary arrests less than 15% involved defendants with no other arrest on the NYSID report.

15

TIME BETWEEN INCIDENT, ARREST AND OCME RECEIPT OF MATERIALS The times between incident and arrest dates, whether submission of biological evidence for Forensic Biology testing occurred pre- or post-arrest, and whether or not the arrest occurred before or after the completion of a Forensic Biology report, was substantially different between the burglary and sexual assault study arrests.

The

differences in the relationship between the work of OCME and the arrests highlight some important differences between the two types of cases in this study.

As can be seen in Table 10 below, over half of all arrests in the sexual assault category occurred within a day of the report of the incident to the NYPD, and another quarter within the next eight-day period. In comparison, only about a fifth of the burglary arrests occurred within a day of the incident date, and over two-thirds (68.2%) occurred eleven or more days after the incident.

Table 10 TIME BETWEEN INCIDENT AND ARREST Same or Next Day 2-10 Days After Incident 11 or More Days After Incident Total Known Time to Arrest Time Difference Unknown/Missing data Total Cases

BURGLARY ARRESTS N % 119 20.3 67 11.5 399 68.2 585 100.0 4 589 -

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 298 51.0 147 25.2 139 23.8 584 100.0 3 587 -

TOTAL N 417 214 538 1169 7 1176

% 35.7 18.3 46.0 100.0 -

Another perspective on the difference in the timing between the burglary and sexual assault arrests is the relationship between when materials were submitted for Forensic Biology testing and the arrest date. In almost two-thirds of the burglary cases the arrest occurred after the submission of biological evidence. In comparison, two-thirds of the sexual assault arrests (66.1%) pre-dated the submission of biological evidence to OCME for testing, as shown in Table 11.

16

Table 11 TIME BETWEEN OCME RECEIPT OF MATERIAL TO BE TESTED AND ARREST Prior to Arrest Same or Next Day 2 or More Days After Arrest Total Cases

BURGLARY ARRESTS N % 381 64.7 5 0.8 203 34.5 589 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 158 26.9 41 7.0 388 66.1 587 100.0

TOTAL N 539 46 591 1176

% 45.8 3.9 50.3 100.0

The final table in this series, shown below, compares the relationship between the completion date of the Forensic Biology report on tested biological evidence and the arrest date. The burglary arrests were far more likely to have occurred after OCME had analyzed materials in the incident.

In comparison, in the overwhelming majority of

sexual assault category cases the arrest occurred not only prior to the submission date (shown above) but also prior to the date of the completed Forensic Biology report (shown below).

Table 12 TIME BETWEEN FORENSIC BIOLOGY REPORT DATE AND ARREST DATE Prior to Arrest Same Day After Arrest Total Cases

BURGLARY ARRESTS N % 268 45.5 2 0.3 319 54.2 589 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 76 12.9 2 0.3 509 86.7 587 100.0

TOTAL N 344 4 828 1176

% 29.3 0.3 70.4 100.0

17

PROSECUTION OF ARRESTS CJA receives information about case processing and court outcomes from an electronic data transfer from the Office of Court Administration (OCA) only for cases prosecuted in the adult criminal courts and initially arraigned in one of the City’s Criminal Courts. In several instances we found arrests made on the basis of an already obtained indictment which were brought directly into a Superior (Supreme) Court for arraignment and prosecution. All case processing and outcomes for these arrests were hand coded and manually entered into the CJA data file and were included among the prosecuted arrests.

Not all of the arrests were prosecuted as can be seen in Table 13.

Overall,

approximately three-fourths of the arrests had court information in the CJA data. There were a greater percentage of prosecuted cases in the sexual assault category (85.0%) in comparison with the burglary category (66.2%).

Table 13 PROSECUTION STATUS

BURGLARY ARRESTS

Prosecuted No Adult Court Prosecution Juvenile Delinquent Total Cases

N 390 172 27 589

% 66.2 29.2 4.6 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT ARRESTS N % 499 85.0 69 11.8 19 3.2 587 100.0

TOTAL N 889 241 46 1176

% 75.6 20.5 3.9 100.0

Among the not prosecuted cases are instances in which either the police or a district attorney’s office provided information to CJA about a decision to not pursue the arrest.

Other times there was no link to court information and no other information

about the status of the arrest.

Cases marked as juvenile delinquent (JD) arrests are shown separately. There are a limited number of violent felony offenses for which arrestees younger than sixteen statutorily are brought directly into the adult court system for prosecution. In all other instances arrests of persons younger than sixteen are considered JD arrests and are subject only to prosecution in the Family Court. We could not determine from CJA data whether or not further prosecutorial action was taken in the small number and

18

percentage of JD-designated arrests in each crime category because CJA does not receive Family Court case processing information.

As previously noted, during the course of quality control we found that in CJA’s main information system some of the study defendants in the burglary category appeared to have had multiple burglary arrests on the same day. For the purpose of this study we were bound by the arrest number provided for the NYPD complaint number, even though it is possible that the work of OCME may ultimately have led to the successful prosecution of one or more individuals involved in a series of burglaries.

The data regarding prosecution of burglary arrests in the study may therefore somewhat underestimate the extent to which defendants not prosecuted in the study cases were held accountable for burglary when the biological evidence tested by OCME was part of a pattern of crimes.

The rate of prosecution progressively decreased among burglary arrests as the severity of the top arrest charge decreased, as shown in Table 14A. For example, 86.7% of burglary arrests with a B-felony severity top arrest charge were prosecuted in comparison with 56.5% of arrests with an E-felony severity top charge. Overall, a little over two-thirds (67.8%) of all burglary arrests with a felony-severity top arrest charge were prosecuted, in comparison with less than two-fifths (38.7%) of the small number of burglary arrests with misdemeanor severity top arrest charges.

Table 14A SEVERITY OF TOP ARREST CHARGE BURGLARY A-felony B-felony C-felony D-felony E-felony Subtotal Felony

PROSECUTED N 0 13 155 197 13

% 86.7 68.3 67.2 56.5

378

67.8

NO ADULT COURT PROSECUTION N % 0 2 13.3 63 27.8 27.0 79 10 43.5 154

27.6

JUVENILE DELINQUENT

TOTAL

N 0 0 9 17 0

% 0.0 4.0 5.8 -

N 0 15 227 293 23

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

26

4.6

558

100.0

19

A-misdemeanor B-misdemeanor Subtotal Misdemeanor Total Cases

12 0

38.7 -

18 0

58.1 -

1 0

3.2 -

31 0

100.0 -

12 390

38.7 66.2

18 172

58.1 29.2

1 27

3.2 4.6

31 589

100.0 100.0

Overall, sexual assault arrests were more likely to be prosecuted in comparison with prosecution rates in burglary cases, 85.0% versus 66.2% respectively.

In addition,

rates of prosecution for sexual assault arrests by top arrest charge severity did not follow the same pattern as was found for burglary arrests. As illustrated in Table 14B, among all felony severity sexual assault arrests, those with an E-felony top arrest charge had the highest prosecution rate 91.9%, with C-felony arrests having the lowest prosecution rate among felony severity arrests at 73.5%. There only was about an eight percentage point difference in the overall felony prosecution rate (85.8%) in comparison with the overall rate of prosecuted arrests among the comparatively small number and percent with a misdemeanor top arrest charge severity (77.4%).

Table 14B SEVERITY OF TOP ARREST CHARGE SEXUAL ASSAULT

PROSECUTED

NO ADULT COURT PROSECUTION N % 1 11.1 44 12.6 8 23.5 7 10.3 4 5.4

N 8 298 25 59 68

% 88.9 85.4 73.5 86.6 91.9

Subtotal Felony A-misdemeanor B-misdemeanor

458

85.8

64

36 5

75.0 100.0

Subtotal Misdemeanor Total Cases

41 499

77.4 85.0

A-felony B-felony C-felony D-felony E-felony

JUVENILE DELINQUENT

TOTAL

N 0 7 1 2 2

% 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.7

N 9 349 34 68 74

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12.0

12

2.2

534

100.0

5 0

10.4 0.0

7 0

14.6 0.0

48 5

100.0 100.0

5 69

9.4 11.8

7 19

13.2 3.2

53 587

100.0 100.0

20

Among all the 1,176 arrests, OCME obtained a CODIS profile in a total of 620, or in somewhat more than half (52.7%), of arrests, as shown at the bottom of Table15A below.

Among all 889 prosecuted arrests a CODIS profile was obtained in 479

(53.9%) of the arrests, as shown in the table’s first row. Among the 241 arrests without an adult court prosecution, a CODIS profile was found in 125 (51.9%) of the arrests, as shown on the second row. A CODIS profile was least likely to be obtained among the small number of JD arrests.

Table 15A PROSECUTION STATUS: ALL STUDY ARRESTS Prosecuted No Adult Court Prosecution Juvenile Delinquent Total Cases

YES N 479 125 16 620

CODIS PROFILE OBTAINED? NO TOTAL % N % N % 53.9 51.9 34.8 52.7

410 116 30 556

46.1 48.1 65.2 47.3

889 241 46 1176

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 15B shows the comparable information separately, in the top half for the burglary category’s cases and in the bottom half for the sexual assault category cases.

A CODIS profile was more likely to have been obtained in the biological evidence tested in the burglary category arrests (59.3%) in comparison with the sexual assault category arrests (46.2%).

A CODIS profile was also far more likely to have been found among

the prosecuted burglary arrests (62.8%) than among the prosecuted sexual assault arrests (46.9%).

Table 15B PROSECUTION STATUS: BURGLARY Prosecuted No Adult Court Prosecution Juvenile Delinquent Total Cases

CODIS PROFILE OBTAINED? YES NO N % N % 245 62.8 145 37.2 91 52.9 81 47.1 13 48.1 14 51.9 349 59.3 240 40.7

TOTAL N % 390 100.0 172 100.0 27 100.0 589 100.0

21

PROSECUTION STATUS: SEXUAL ASSAULT Prosecuted No Adult Court Prosecution Juvenile Delinquent Total Cases

YES N 234 34 3 271

CODIS PROFILE OBTAINED? NO % N % 46.9 265 53.1 49.3 35 50.7 15.8 16 84.2 46.2 316 53.8

TOTAL N 499 69 19 587

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

In a substantial majority of the prosecuted cases the completion of the Forensic Biology report occurred after the date of the defendant’s arraignment appearance.

However, the completion of the Forensic Biology report was far more likely to pre-date defendant arraignments in the burglary category cases (45.4%) in comparison with the sexual assault category cases (12.4%), as shown in Table 16.

Table 16 TIME BETWEEN COMPLETION OF FORENSIC BIOLOGY REPORT AND ARRAIGNMENT Before Arraignment After Arraignment Total

PROSECUTED BURGLARY CASES N 177 213 390

% 45.4 54.6 100.0

PROSECUTED SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES N % 62 12.4 437 87.6 499 100.0

TOTAL N 239 650 889

% 26.9 73.1 100.0

22

DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN PROSECUTED CASES As noted previously, many factors can affect court decisions, including not only legal factors such as the nature of the crime but also defendant characteristics. In this section of the report various defendant attributes in the prosecuted cases are discussed, beginning with demographic characteristics.

This is followed by an

examination of defendant criminal history characteristics in the burglary and sexual assault cases. The final set of attributes examined are based on the information CJA collects about defendants during its pre-arraignment interview, and the release recommendation provided by CJA to the court at Criminal Court arraignment. All of these different factors are used later in this report in statistical analyses attempting to determine the relative impact of OCME’s Forensic Biology testing after controlling for these other items that also could have affected case processing and court outcome decisions.

Demographic Characteristics The characteristics of defendants in prosecuted cases closely resembled those among all arrested defendants. Almost all defendants were male. In addition, over half of all defendants in sexual assault cases were Black, while Hispanic defendants made up the plurality of defendants in the burglary category.

White defendants were

proportionately more likely to be found in the burglary category. There also was little difference in the overall age distributions or in the average age of defendants in each crime category.

There was only a slight upward distribution among the age-group

categories as a result of the elimination of the JD arrests in the 15 and younger agegroup category.

Table 17A DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS SEX Male Female Total

BURGLARY N 369 21 390

% 94.6 5.4 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT N 491 8 499

% 98.4 1.6 100.0

TOTAL N 860 29 889

% 96.7 3.3 100.0

23

ETHNICITY Black Hispanic White Other Unknown Total AGEGROUP 15 or Younger 16-19 20-25 26-29 30-35 36-39 40+ Total MEAN AGE MEDIAN AGE

N 152 157 66 14 1 390 N 0 78 88 36 46 31 111 390

% 39.0 40.3 16.9 3.6 0.3 100.0 % 20.0 22.6 9.2 11.8 7.9 28.5 100.0

N 260 178 39 21 1 499 N 3 80 137 58 65 44 112 499

31.06 28.0

% 52.1 35.7 7.8 4.2 0.2 100.0 % 0.6 16.0 27.5 11.6 13.0 8.8 22.4 100.0

N 412 335 105 35 2 889 N 3 158 225 94 111 75 223 889

30.36 27.0

% 46.3 37.7 11.8 3.9 0.2 100.0 % 0.3 17.8 25.3 10.6 12.5 8.4 25.1 100.0

30.66 28.0

Criminal History There also were few differences in the criminal history of defendants between those in the prosecuted cases in comparison with the criminal history of all defendants in each of the crime categories described previously. As displayed in Table 17B, defendants prosecuted for a burglary crime were far more likely to have some other activity on the NYSID sheet in comparison with defendants prosecuted for a sexual assault offense, and also were far more likely to have a criminal conviction history.

Table 17B CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY No Convictions, No other arrests on NYSID sheet No Convictions, Other arrests on NYSID sheet Prior adult convictions on NYSID sheet Total Known Criminal History Unknown Total Cases

BURGLARY CASES

SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES N %

N

%

55

14.5

211

88

23.2

237

TOTAL N

%

42.5

266

30.4

115

23.2

203

23.2

62.4

170

34.3

407

46.5

380

100.0

496

100.0

876

100.0

10 390

-

3 499

-

13 889

-

24

Not shown is that among the cases in which defendants had criminal convictions, the defendants in the burglary category cases also were more likely to previously have been convicted for both misdemeanor and felony severity crimes in comparison with the defendants in the sexual assault category’s cases.

CJA Interview Items and Release Recommendation For defendants held for arraignment (summary arrests), the pre-arraignment interview includes soliciting from defendants information about their circumstances at the time of the arrest, such as: whether they are engaged in full-time activities (work, school or training program alone or in combination) in the legitimate marketplace; where they live and for how long; whether they have a phone number at which they can be reached if released on recognizance; and whether they expect someone to attend their arraignment. Defendants also are asked to provide the names and phone numbers of persons who can be called to verify responses.

For interview items subject to

verification the responses can be: › Yes: Defendant response was yes but no one was successfully contacted to verify the response; › Yes, Verified: Defendant response was yes and this answer was successfully verified by a third-party; › No: Defendant response was no but no one was successfully contacted to verify the response; › No, Verified: Defendant response was no and this answer was successfully verified by a third-party; › Unresolved Conflict: There was a discrepancy between the defendant’s and third-party verifier’s answers and the CJA interviewer was unable to resolve the conflicting information prior to the completion of the interview process.

For CJA recommendation purposes: › Points are credited to a defendant’s score only for full-time activities (work, school or a training program, along or in a combination) and points are deducted for unemployment or only part-time activities; › CJA evaluates whether or not defendants have lived at their current address for at least 18 months, and whether or not the defendant lives with others or alone, but no points are given to either the yes or no responses, without regard to verification, for these items;

25

› Defendants lose points if they cannot provide a New York City area address, which includes the City’s five boroughs and surrounding New York areas such as Westchester or Long Island, but excludes any non-New York State addresses. › Expecting someone at arraignment is not a verifiable item so that points are credited or deducted based on a response of yes, or a response of no or don’t know, respectively.

Table 18 that follows examines how defendants in the study’s prosecuted cases responded to these items within the two crime categories and overall. Percentages only were computed for interviewed cases with the number of cases missing a response to each item shown below the totals. For all but the expects-someone-at-arraignment item all yes and yes verified responses have been combined, as have all no and no verified responses. Unresolved conflict responses are shown separately as applicable. ♦ In over half of the sexual assault category cases defendants reported full-time activity, a greater proportion than among the burglary cases, 56.4% versus 39.2% respectively. ♦ In over half of all the cases defendants reported living with others, but the percentage was greater among defendants interviewed in the burglary cases. ♦ Almost all defendants reported having a New York City area address, and over threefifths in each crime category had resided at that address for a minimum of 18 months. ♦ Substantial majorities of interviewed defendants in both crime categories were able to provide a contact telephone number for themselves and there was little difference between the crime categories. ♦ Less than half of all defendants expected someone to attend their Criminal Court arraignment and defendants in the burglary cases were only slightly more confident of this (43.6%) in comparison with defendants in the sexual assault cases (41.0%).

Overall there were few differences in the responses to the CJA interview items between interviewed defendants in the two crime categories.

The most noticeable

differences were in the reporting of full-time activities and in living with others.

26

Table 18 CJA INTERVIEW ITEMS Full Time Activity?

Yes/Yes Verified No/ No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Missing Lives With Others Yes/Yes Verified No/ No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Missing NYC-Area Address Yes/Yes Verified No/ No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Missing Length at Address Yes/Yes Verified No/ No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Missing Telephone Number Yes/Yes Verified No/ No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Missing Expects Someone at Arraignment Yes No or Don’t Know Total Missing

BURGLARY CASES N 129 187 13 329 61 N 205 118 8 331 59 N 302 21 8 331 59 N 203 112 12 327 63

% 39.2 56.8 4.0 100.0 % 61.9 35.6 2.4 100.0 % 91.2 6.3 2.4 100.0 % 62.1 34.3 3.7 100.0 -

N 226 90 13 329 61 N 142 184 326 64

% 68.7 27.4 4.0 100.0 % 43.6 56.4 100.0 -

SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES N % 267 56.4 199 42.1 7 1.5 473 100.0 26 N % 254 53.7 215 45.5 4 0.8 473 100.0 26 N % 444 93.9 25 5.3 4 0.8 473 100.0 26 N % 299 63.2 168 35.5 6 1.3 473 100.0 26 N 341 115 15 471 28 N 194 279 473 26

% 72.4 24.4 3.2 100.0 % 41.0 59.0 100.0 -

TOTAL N 396 386 20 802 87 N 459 333 12 804 85 N 746 46 12 804 85 N 502 280 18 800 89

% 49.4 48.1 2.5 100.0 % 57.1 41.4 1.5 100.0 % 92.8 5.7 1.5 100.0 % 62.7 35.0 2.3 100.0 -

N 567 205 28 800 89 N 336 463 799 90

% 70.9 25.6 3.5 100.0 % 42.1 57.9 100.0 -

27

The point values assigned to interview items, and to two critical criminal history items from the NYSID report—whether the person has any previous failures to appear (FTA) at scheduled court appearances, and whether there are any open cases—are calculated, and the point scores determine the release recommendation category provided to the court based on the relative FTA risk associated with the scores. The most heavily weighted item in CJA’s point scale is if defendants have any prior FTA in their criminal history, with +5 points given for the absence of any prior bench warrant and -5 points subtracted for any prior warrant. As a result, defendants with any prior FTA can never receive enough points to be categorized as Recommended for ROR or of Moderate FTA risk.

Defendants in the burglary cases, as can be seen in Table 19, were far more likely to be Not Recommended for ROR based on a high FTA risk (46.2%) in comparison to the defendants in the sexual assault category cases (28.8%). Conversely, defendants in the sexual assault cases were far more likely to be considered at low risk of FTA and therefore Recommended for ROR (44.3%) in comparison with defendants in the burglary cases (23.4%).

As previously shown, there were not substantial differences in defendant responses to individual interview items, but there were substantial differences in criminal history.

Defendants in burglary cases were far more likely to have had previous contact with the adult court system, and therefore far greater opportunity to have failed to appear in prior cases. As a result, criminal history can best explain the proportionately far higher risk of FTA among the burglary defendants, 46.2% of interviewed cases in this category in comparison with 28.8% for defendants in the sexual assault category.

28

CJA RELEASE RECOMMENDATION

Table 19 BURGLARY N %

SEXUAL ASSAULT N %

TOTAL N

%

Recommended For ROR Moderate FTA Risk High FTA Risk Not Recommended: Bench Warrant Other Not Recommended Categories No Recommendation Categories (combined) Juvenile Offender Recommendation Categories

80 38 158 41 8

23.4 11.1 46.2 12.0 2.3

214 83 139 26 4

44.3 17.2 28.8 5.4 0.8

294 121 297 67 12

35.6 14.7 36.0 8.1 1.5

17

5.0

14

2.9

31

3.8

0

0.0

3

0.6

3

0.4

Total Interviewed Not Interviewed Total Cases

342 48 390

100.0 -

483 16 499

100.0 -

825 64 889

100.0 -

29

ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITIES The top and bottom halves of Table 20 examine the relationship between the severity of the Criminal Court arraignment charge and the severity of the top arrest charge for the two crime categories separately.

Within each crime category the table

shows the extent to which the severity of the arraignment charge differed from the severity of the top arrest charge overall and by whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained.

In every instance in which there was no change in severity between the top arrest and Criminal Court arraignment charge the charges themselves were identical. In the overwhelming majority of the cases in which there was charge severity reduction between the top arrest charge and the arraignment charge the difference was the result of a prosecutorial decision to pursue the case with a charge in the same Penal Law article but of a lesser severity classification. However, there were court cases in which the Penal Law article of the arraignment charge changed with severity change. (Data not shown)

Because this would have resulted in the need to create charge

combinations and because it infrequently occurred, it seemed that comparing charge severities rather than actual charge relationships was the preferred strategy.

In neither crime category does the presence or absence of a CODIS profile appear to have had any direct relationship on the prosecutorial charging decision. However, as was previously shown, the Forensic Biology report completion date almost always occurred after the arraignment of defendants in the sexual assault cases, and in a majority of the burglary cases. One therefore would not expect to find a relationship between the presence or absence of a CODIS profile this early in case processing, especially among the sexual assault cases.

As also shown on Table 20, in each category approximately two-thirds of all cases were arraigned on a charge of the same severity classification as the top arrest charge.

However, there were a slightly greater percentage of cases (among the small numbers of cases) in which the original arrest charge severity was upgraded at Criminal Court arraignment among the cases in each category in which no CODIS profile was found.

30

Table 20 SEVERITY CHANGE BETWEEN ARRAIGNMENT AND TOP ARREST CHARGES BURGLARY Arraignment Charge More Severe then Top Arrest Charge Arraignment and Top Arrest Charge Same Severity Arraignment Charge of Lesser Severity than Top Arrest Charge Total Cases SEVERITY CHANGE BETWEEN ARRAIGNMENT AND TOP ARREST CHARGES SEXUAL ASSAULT Arraignment Charge More Severe then Top Arrest Charge Arraignment and Top Arrest Charge of the Same Severity Arraignment Charge of Lesser Severity than Top Arrest Charge Total Cases

CODIS Profile=Yes

CODIS Profile=No

N

%

N

%

N

%

47

19.2

35

24.1

82

21.0

163

66.5

91

62.8

254

65.1

35

14.3

19

13.1

54

13.8

245

100.0

145

100.0

390

100.0

TOTAL

CODIS Profile=Yes

CODIS Profile=No

N

%

N

%

N

%

41

17.5

54

20.4

95

19.0

159

67.9

171

64.5

330

66.1

34

14.5

40

15.1

74

14.8

234

100.0

265

100.0

499

100.0

TOTAL

31

COURT CASE PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES Criminal Court Arraignment All but eleven of the 889 prosecuted cases were continued leaving the Criminal Court arraignment appearance. In the burglary category a total of seven cases were completed at Criminal Court arraignment: three were convictions; two Adjournments in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD); and two were disposed by being covered by the prosecution of the defendant on a different case. In the sexual assault category there were three convictions and one ACD. (Data not shown) As displayed on Table 21 that follows, approximately three-fourths of defendants in cases arraigned as scheduled and continued leaving the Criminal Court arraignment appearance were detained with bail set in an amount in which neither the defendant, family members or friends could immediately pay at the end of the court appearance.

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS Remand Bail Set and Not Made Bail Set and Made Release on Recognizance Total Arraigned as Scheduled DAT/Warrant Ordered at Arraignment Total Continued Cases

Table 21 BURGLARY N % 18 4.7 289 75.7 11 2.9 64 16.8 382 100.0 1 383 -

SEXUAL ASSAULT N % 6.5 32 364 73.7 28 5.7 70 14.2 494 100.0 1 495 -

TOTAL N 50 653 39 134 876 2 878

% 5.7 74.5 4.5 15.3 100.0 -

Court Outcomes Case outcomes—dispositions or status at last reported appearance—in Criminal and Supreme Court were combined to create a single court outcome variable. Overall, most of the prosecuted study arrests had a disposition at the time the data set was created, with a majority of these cases ending with a conviction, as shown in Table 22.

However, burglary cases were far more likely to have ended with a conviction than sexual assault cases, 77.4% versus 51.5%. Conversely, sexual assault cases were far more likely to have been disposed with an outright dismissal, 36.3% versus 11.0% for the burglary cases. The percentage of sexual assault cases also was greater among

32

the small number of cases Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) in each crime category, 3.8% versus 0.5% for the burglary cases.

The “other disposition” category includes case outcomes of covered, consolidated or a transfer to Family Court. In CJA’s information system any of these case outcomes ends the collection of case processing information so that the ultimate outcome of the prosecution against the defendant cannot be determined.

Fairly similar percentages of the cases in each category remained not disposed at the time the data set was created.

Among the 52 not disposed cases most were

ongoing as of the last reported court appearance with a small number of the cases suspended when the defendant failed to appear and the bench warrant issued at that time remained outstanding as of the most recent status.

CASE OUTCOMES

Table 22 BURGLARY N %

SEXUAL ASSAULT N %

TOTAL N %

Conviction

302

77.4

257

51.5

559

62.9

ACD Dismissal Subtotal in favor of the defendant

2 43 45

0.5 11.0 11.5

19 181 200

3.8 36.3 40.1

21 224 245

2.4 25.2 27.6

Other Dispositions Not Disposed Subtotal other outcomes

21 22 43

5.4 5.6 11.0

12 30 42

2.4 6.0 8.4

33 52 85

3.7 5.8 9.5

Total

390

100.0

499

100.0

889

100.0

Although only a small percentage of each category’s cases fell into the “other dispositions” category, the percentage was greater for the burglary cases. Among the twenty-one burglary cases with an “other disposition”: eighteen ended by having the prosecution of the study case covered by a different prosecuted case; two cases had their prosecution consolidated (combined) with a different case; and one case was removed (transferred) to the Family Court for resolution. Among the twelve sexual assault cases in this disposition category: six were covered by the prosecution in a different case; four were consolidated with another case; and one was removed to the Family Court.

33

Focus on Convictions & Dismissal/ACD Outcomes In this section of the report the focus is on differences between cases with convictions, and cases with dispositions favorable to the defendant—outright dismissals and ACDs combined—in the burglary and in the sexual assault cases. The Forensic Biology report date predated the disposition in 84.4% of the total of 347 burglary cases with either a conviction or a dismissal/ACD outcome combined, and in 90.8% of the combined total of 457 sexual assault cases with these dispositions, and shown in Table 23.

Table 23 TIMING OF REPORT COMPLETION FOR CONVICTED OR DISMISSED/ACD CASES Forensic Biology Report Before Disposition Forensic Biology Report After Disposition Total Cases

BURGLARY N 293 54 347

% 84.4 15.6 100.0

SEXUAL ASSAULT N % 415 90.8 42 9.1 457 100.0

TOTAL N 708 96 804

% 88.1 11.9 100.0

Table 24 compares conviction versus dismissal/ACD case outcomes separately for the burglary and sexual assault cases in which the Forensic Biology report pre-dated the disposition, and for when it occurred after the court disposition date. Among the burglary cases the Forensic Biology report date pre-dated the disposition date in 293 cases, and the report date was after the disposition in 54 cases, as shown in Table 24.

For both there was an identical percentage of convicted and of dismissed/ACD cases: 87.0% convicted and 13.0% dismiss/ACD. In the sexual assault cases, Table 24 shows that there were 415 cases in which Forensic Biology report date pre-dated the disposition.

Among these cases 57.6%

ended with a conviction and 42.4% had a dismissal/ACD outcome. There were only 42 sexual assault cases in which the Forensic Biology report was after the disposition of which 42.9% had a conviction and 57.1% a dismissal/ACD outcome.

34

Table 24 DISPOSITIONS BY WHETHER THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY REPORT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER DISPOSITION REPORT BEFORE DISPOSITION Convictions Dismissal/ACD Total Before Disposition

N 255 38 293

% 87.0 13.0 100

N 239 176 415

% 57.6 42.4 100

N 494 214 708

% 69.8 30.2 100

REPORT AFTER DISPOSITION Convictions Dismissal/ACD Total After Disposition

N 47 7 54

% 87.0 13.0 100

N 18 24 42

% 42.9 57.1 100

N 65 31 96

% 67.7 32.3 100

BURGLARY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

TOTAL

For only the 708 cases in which the Forensic Biology report date preceded the court disposition date, Table 25 examines differences in the type of disposition by whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained from the tested materials. However, it is important to remember that a CODIS profile is only one type of DNA result that may have been provided by OCME, and that DNA evidence is only one part of the evidentiary basis that can affect case dispositions.

As can be seen in the bottom row of each category on this table, among the cases with a Forensic Biology report date before the disposition date, a CODIS profile was found in a far greater percentage of the burglary cases. OCME extracted one or more CODIS profiles in 66.2% of the 293 burglary cases shown in the table, in comparison with an identified CODIS profile in 46.3% of the 415 sexual assault cases shown.

Among the burglary cases there was little difference in the likelihood of conviction as opposed to a dismissal/ACD based on whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained.

A conviction occurred in 86.1% of the cases with a CODIS profile and in 88.9% of the smaller number of burglary cases in which no CODIS profile was obtained. Among the sexual assault cases the finding of a CODIS profile led to a slightly higher likelihood of conviction. A conviction occurred in 59.9% of the cases with a CODIS profile found versus a conviction rate of 55.6% without a CODIS profile obtained.

35

Table 25 DISPOSITIONS WITHIN CRIME CATEGORY BURGLARY Convictions Dismissal/ACD Total Percentage CODIS Yes/No SEXUAL ASSAULT Convictions Dismissal/ACD Total Percentage CODIS Yes/No

CODIS Profile Obtained=YES N % 167 86.1 27 13.9 194 100.0 66.2 N % 115 59.9 77 40.1 192 100.0 46.3

CODIS Profile Obtained=NO N % 88 88.9 11 11.1 99 100.0 33.8 N % 124 55.6 99 44.4 223 100.0 53.7

Total Cases N % 255 87.0 38 13.0 293 100.0 100.0 N % 239 57.6 176 42.4 415 100.0 100.0

The next illustration examines charge change between the Criminal Court arraignment and the conviction charge when a Forensic Biology report was completed prior to the conviction court appearance. It further compares charge change by whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained in the case. (In a handful of cases the conviction charge was actually more severe than the original Criminal Court arraignment charge.

When this occurred the cases appear in the ‘same severity’ category.)

As illustrated in Table 26, in the both the burglary and sexual assault cases there was less likely to be a charge reduction when a CODIS profile was obtained. However, and in general, charge reduction was far more prevalent among sexual assault cases.

Among the convicted cases in the burglary category, the conviction charge was of the same severity as the original prosecuted charge in 44.3% of the cases in which a CODIS profile was obtained in comparison with 30.7% without a CODIS profile. Among the sexual assault cases there was a conviction to a charge of the same severity classification in 27.8% of the cases with a CODIS profile and in 21.8% of the cases without a CODIS profile.

In only 20.4% of the burglary category cases with a CODIS profile, and in 29.5% without, were defendants convicted of a charge reduced by two or more classifications levels than the charge entering the Criminal Court.

In comparison, conviction to a

charge reduced by two or more classification levels occurred in 55.5% of the sexual assault cases with a CODIS profile and in 64.5% of the convicted cases without a CODIS profile.

36

Table 26 CHANGE IN CONVICTION CHARGE SEVERITY WITHIN CRIME CATEGORY BURGLARY Same One Classification Lower More than One Classification Lower Total Percentage Convictions with CODIS Yes/No

CODIS Profile Obtained=YES N % 74 44.3 59 35.3 34 20.4 167 100.0

CODIS Profile Obtained=NO N % 27 30.7 35 39.8 26 29.5 88 100.0

65.5

34.5

CHANGE IN CONVICTION CHARGE SEVERITY WITHIN CRIME CATEGORY SEXUAL ASSAULT Same One Classification Lower More than One Classification Lower Total Percentage Convictions with CODIS Yes/No

CODIS Profile Obtained=YES N % 32 27.8 19 16.5 64 55.7 115 100.0

CODIS Profile Obtained=NO N % 27 21.8 17 13.7 80 64.5 124 100.0

48.1

51.9

Total Cases N 101 94 60 255

% 39.6 36.9 23.5 100.0 100.0

Total Cases N 59 36 144 239

% 24.7 15.1 60.3 100.0 100.0

Case Processing Times In burglary cases the average time for a conviction was 184.78 days, with a median of 123.5 days.

The average time in which dismissal/ACD outcomes occurred was

188.51 days with a median of 198.00 days. For the sexual assault category cases the average case processing time to a conviction was 268.4 days with a median of 206.0 days. The time to dismissal/ACD outcomes came more quickly with an average of 212.88 days with a median of 192.0 days. (Data not shown) In the illustration that follows, only cases for which the Forensic Biology report was completed by the disposition date are shown. The top portion of Table 27 examines the mean (mathematical average) and median (midpoint) time to conviction by whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained, separately for the burglary and sexual assault cases.

As has been previously discussed, the overwhelming majority of burglary cases ended with a conviction. In contrast a greater percentage of sexual assault cases ended with a dismissal/ACD outcome.

Both of these findings remain true when the analysis is

restricted only to the cases in which the Forensic Biology report was completed predisposition.

37

When a CODIS profile was obtained the average time to a burglary conviction was only slightly shorter, approximately 206 days from the Criminal Court arraignment, in comparison with approximately 221 days from arraignment to conviction when no CODIS profile was obtained.

Among the convicted sexual assault cases the conviction occurred about twenty days longer for cases with a CODIS profile obtained, an average of approximately 297 days.

In comparison, convictions in sexual assault cases took an average of

approximately 274 days without a CODIS profile.

The presence or absence of a CODIS profile would appear to have made little difference among the small number of dismissals/ACDs in burglary cases. The average time to the dismissal/ACD was about ten days shorter in the presence of a CODIS profile.

However, the median time to the dismissal/ACD was several days longer.

Among the sexual assault category cases the average time to the dismissal/ACD came more slowly when a CODIS profile was obtained, approximately 255 days, in comparison with approximately 227 days absent a CODIS profile.

CONVICTIONS: FORENSIC BIOLOGY REPORT

BY DISPOSITION DATE Mean Days to Conviction Median Days to Conviction Convicted Cases DISMISSAL/ACD: FORENSIC BIOLOGY REPORT

BY DISPOSITION DATE Mean Days to Dismiss/ACD Median Days to Dismiss/ACD Dismiss/ACD Cases

Table 27 BURGLARY CODIS Profile CODIS Profile Obtained=YES Obtained=NO 206.16 143.0 167

221.14 145.5 88

BURGLARY CODIS Profile CODIS Profile Obtained=YES Obtained=NO 211.59 200.0 27

222.27 192.0 11

SEXUAL ASSAULT CODIS Profile CODIS Profile Obtained=YES Obtained=NO 297.46 267.0 115

274.37 199.5 124

SEXUAL ASSAULT CODIS Profile CODIS Profile Obtained=YES Obtained=NO 254.787 206.0 77

226.96 196.0 99

38

TESTING THE INFLUENCE OF OCME DATA ON CASE OUTCOMES We were asked to determine whether the work done by the OCME Department of Forensic Biology had an influence on criminal justice outcomes. Among the issues of particular interest were whether the timing of obtaining and testing materials for DNA evidence, and/or the results of this testing, influenced either the decision to prosecute an arrest, or the court outcomes or case processing times in the prosecuted cases. In this section, we examine the influence of a delay in OCME receiving biological evidence after the incident (versus no delay) and the influence of OCME obtaining a CODIS profile (versus no CODIS profile obtained). These are our independent variables of interest.

We assess whether these variables significantly influenced the likelihood of conviction and charge severity depreciation, our dependant variables, after taking into account a variety of other factors (e.g., other independent variables) that may also be significant influencers. We measure conviction status as convicted versus not convicted (defined as a combination of dismissals and ACD outcomes).

We define charge

severity depreciation among convicted cases as charge severity lessened from Criminal Court arraignment to disposition (e.g., it depreciated) versus the same charge severity at Criminal Court arraignment and at the disposition court appearance.

We test the effects of our independent variables of interest with logistic regression models.

These models are designed to evaluate which independent variables

significantly predict the dependant variables (conviction status and charge severity depreciation), accounting for the effects of all other independent variables. We use tests of statistical significance, which stipulate that the effect of a significant independent variable on the dependant variable has a .05 probability or less of being due to chance alone.

In our models, along with our independent variables of interest, we also test several other independent variables that in prior studies of court case processing have demonstrated significant effects on conviction status. We do so because using logistic regression models allows us to find variables that are significant while accounting for the effects of other variables.

So by testing all possible significant predictors of

39

conviction status available in our data alongside our independent variables of interest (delay in receipt and CODIS profile obtained), if our independent variables of interest are significant, we can be assured that they, by themselves, significantly influence conviction status.

The OCME independent variables tested in each analysis are as follows: › Did the defendant have multiple sexual assault / burglary cases in the dataset? › Was the defendant arrested prior to OCME receipt of evidence? › Was there a delay of over a week from the date of the incident to the date of OCME receipt of evidence? › How long (in days from OCME receipt of evidence) did it take OCME to report the result? › Did OCME receive evidence before Criminal Court arraignment that led to a CODIS profile being obtained? › Did OCME receive evidence after arraignment but before disposition that led to a CODIS profile being obtained? › Did OCME report a CODIS profile obtained result before arraignment? › Did OCME report a CODIS profile obtained result after arraignment?

The other independent variables tested in each analysis, including those from the CJA pre-arraignment interview as described earlier in the report, are as follows: › When was this arrest (what year)? › Was there a delay from incident to arrest (over a day)? › What age was the defendant? › What ethnicity was the defendant? › Did the defendant have a telephone number? › Did the defendant live with others? › Did the defendant have full-time activities (work, school, training program)? › Did the defendant have a NYC-area address? › Has the defendant lived at this address for at least a year and a half? › How many open cases did the defendant have at the time of the study arrest? › What was the defendant’s criminal history? › Was the defendant recommended for ROR at arraignment by CJA? › Was the defendant released at arraignment (either via bail-making or ROR)? › On what charge severity was the defendant arraigned? › In what borough was the defendant prosecuted?

40

› How long was the case from arrest to disposition in days? › Did the defendant ever have a bench warrant before disposition?

Because of the difference between burglary and sexual assault cases, we do separate analyses for each case type.

Within each case type, we do a separate

analysis for each dependant variable; one assesses the predictors of conviction status for docketed, disposed cases, and the other assesses the predictors of charge severity depreciation for convicted cases. A consequence of including the array of independent variables as detailed above is that it somewhat lessens the number of prosecuted cases included in the tested models because cases missing any of the independent variables are excluded from the analysis.

Burglary Cases: Conviction status for docketed disposed cases In burglary cases, more than a week’s delay from incident date to the date of OCME receipt of biological evidence significantly lessens the likelihood of conviction. This effect is regardless of whether the testing for DNA resulted in obtaining a CODIS profile, and this variable is significant after controlling for the effects of other significant variables in the model.

Burglary Cases: Charge severity depreciation for convicted cases In convicted burglary cases, obtaining a CODIS profile, reported before arraignment, significantly lessens the likelihood of any charge severity depreciation.

However, once the effect of arraignment charge severity on charge severity depreciation is accounted for, the effect of the CODIS profile being obtained washes away.

It is possible that obtaining a CODIS profile result, reported before arraignment, exerts an influence on arraignment charge severity. For example, a CODIS profile obtained result may affect the prosecutorial decision to arraign the case on the best and most sustainable charges resulting in a lessened likelihood of charge severity depreciation. In this case, a CODIS profile obtained result reported before arraignment could influence charge severity depreciation by influencing arraignment charge severity.

In convicted burglary cases, obtaining a CODIS profile, reported before arraignment, marginally significantly lessens the likelihood of charge severity

41

depreciation of two levels or more. Marginal significance indicates that the variable is close to being significant but isn’t quite there; nonetheless we feel it is of importance to report this finding because it seems unlikely to be due to chance (1 in 10 odds that it is due to chance). This variable is marginally significant even after controlling for the effect of arraignment charge severity and other significant variables So while we speculated above that having a CODIS profile obtained result reported before arraignment could affect release status which would in turn affect any charge severity depreciation, here we find that, by itself, obtaining a CODIS profile reported before arraignment marginally significantly affects charge severity depreciation of two or more levels; in essence its effect extends beyond simply affecting arraignment charge severity.

Sexual Assault Cases: Conviction status for docketed disposed cases In sexual assault cases, when OCME received biological evidence after arraignment but before disposition, and that material eventually had a CODIS profile result obtained, those cases are marginally significantly more likely to be convicted.

This effect is significant even after accounting for the effects of other significant variables, such as arraignment release status.

While this effect is only marginally

significant, we believe that with more cases included in the analysis (e.g., a larger N), the effect would become statistically significant.

Sexual Assault Cases: Charge severity depreciation for convicted cases In convicted sexual assault cases, when OCME received biological evidence after arraignment but before disposition and that material eventually was reported with a CODIS profile obtained, those cases are marginally significantly less likely to have any charge depreciation. Again, this effect is only marginally significant, but remained so even after accounting for the effects of other significant variables.

In convicted sexual assault cases, obtaining a CODIS profile, reported after arraignment but before disposition, significantly lessens the likelihood of charge severity depreciation by two or more levels. This effect is significant even after controlling for the effects of other significant variables.

42

Summary of the Logistic Regression Analyses In burglary cases: ♦ Delay in OCME receipt of biological evidence lessens the likelihood of conviction. ♦ CODIS profile obtained, reported before arraignment, may cause case to be arraigned on charges that are less likely to depreciate by any number of severity levels for convicted cases. ♦ CODIS profile obtained, reported before arraignment, marginally lessens the likelihood of charge severity depreciation by two or more levels for convicted cases.

In sexual assault cases: ♦ CODIS profile obtained, received after arraignment but before disposition, marginally increases the likelihood of conviction. ♦ CODIS profile obtained, received after arraignment but before disposition, marginally lessens the likelihood of ANY charge severity depreciation for convicted cases. ♦ CODIS profile obtained, reported after arraignment but before disposition, lessens the likelihood of charge severity depreciation by two or more levels for convicted cases.

43

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This research has explored the influence of some of the DNA testing work of the OCME Department of Forensic Biology on arrests for burglary and sexual assault crimes, and case processing and court outcomes when these arrest were prosecuted.

It specifically has examined the potential impact of DNA testing on biological evidence and obtaining a CODIS profile result, alone and in combination with other factors for which information was available for this study, such as defendant, criminal history, and charge characteristics.

Because the study was limited to the testing of CODIS-eligible biological evidence, this research could neither assess the full impact of Forensic Biology DNA testing of all biological materials recovered in the study cases, nor any auxiliary roles played by OCME such as testimonial evidence.

In addition, another limiting factor was the

absence of indicators of the strength of other potentially important items of evidence in the study cases. However, the findings do suggest that the timely testing of biological evidence, and the finding of a CODIS profile by OCME, did have an effect in the study cases. Because burglary and sexual assault are distinctive and distinctively different types of crimes, this research found that the results of the Department of Forensic Biology’s work came into play at different decision points in the burglary and sexual assault cases in this study.

The data for this research drew on several sources. OCME provided information about DNA testing of biological evidence performed in calendar year 2008, including whether it successfully extracted any DNA profiles reported to CODIS, and the timing of the Forensic Biology report on this work, in burglary and sexual assault crimes for which an arrest was made, with the corresponding arrest numbers supplied by the NYPD. Information about the arrests and defendants, and case processing and court outcomes in prosecuted cases, were obtained from the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA).

The OCME data analyzed for this research came from 999 crime complaints in which OCME tested biological evidence for the presence of DNA. The 999 NYPD complaints resulted in 1,176 arrests, 589 involving burglary crimes and 587 sexual

44

assaults. The arrestees were almost all male and overwhelming Black or Hispanic persons. Over half of the sexual assault category arrests involved Black defendants, while a plurality of the defendants in the burglary category arrests were Hispanic. White defendants were disproportionately found in the burglary category. Defendants in the burglary arrests were slightly older, with a mean age of about 31 years and a median age of 29 years, in comparison with defendants in the sexual assault arrests.

Defendants in the burglary arrests were far more likely to have had other criminal justice activity on the NYSID report associated with the study arrest in comparison with defendants arrested in the sexual assault category.

In approximately 85% of the

burglary arrests defendants had some criminal history, most commonly criminal convictions (60.7%) as opposed to only prior open arrests without convictions (24.4%).

In comparison, in over two-fifths of the sexual assault arrests defendants had no prior activity on the NYSID report associated with the study arrests, and only slightly over a third already had criminal convictions on the NYSID report at the time of the arrest.

Sexual assault arrests occurred far more quickly after the incident was reported.

Over half of all sexual assault arrests in this study occurred within a day of the incident.

In comparison, only about one-fifth of the burglary arrests occurred this proximate to the incident date; over two-thirds of all burglary arrests occurred eleven or more days after the incident. This also affected the timing of submission of biological evidence for DNA testing between the two types of cases. In almost two-thirds of the burglary arrests OCME received biological evidence for testing prior to the arrest.

In comparison,

OCME received approximately two-thirds of the sexual assault biological evidence for testing after the arrests occurred.

In almost three-fifths of the burglary arrests and in less than half of the sexual assault arrests OCME obtained a DNA profile reported to the national CODIS database.

In addition, OCME completed its report prior to arrest in approximately 45% of the study’s burglary arrests, but in only about 13% of the sexual assault cases. Because of the timing of OCME receipt of, or reporting on, biological evidence to be tested it is unlikely that whether or not a CODIS profile was obtained would be directly correlated with sexual assault arrests. The relationship between arrests and the work of OCME on testing and reporting on biological evidence in burglary arrests is less clear because

45

there was more time for OCME to receive and/or test materials in burglary complaints prior to arrests.

Sexual assault arrests had higher prosecution rates, 85%, in comparison with the burglary arrests, 66.2%. However, among prosecuted burglary arrests a CODIS profile was obtained in over three-fifths of the cases.

In addition, a CODIS profile was

obtained in a greater percentage of the prosecuted cases in comparison with not prosecuted cases. A CODIS profile was obtained in less than half of the sexual assault cases, and a CODIS profile was obtained in a slightly greater percentage of not prosecuted sexual assault cases (49.3%) in comparison with the percentage of prosecuted cases (46.9%).

Among the prosecuted cases defendant demographic and criminal history characteristics were very similar to those found among all arrests in each of the two crime categories. Among the prosecuted cases there were only a few differences in CJA collected information about defendant circumstances comparing defendants in the burglary and sexual assault.

Overwhelmingly defendants in both categories’ cases

reported a NYC-area address at which they had lived for a minimum of eighteen months, and also reported having a phone number at which they could be contacted.

Among the prosecuted sexual assault cases defendants were considerably more likely to report full-time activities such as attending school, work, participating in a program, in comparison with the defendants in the burglary cases.

There was a substantial difference between defendants in the two groups of cases in relation to CJA’s release recommendation if defendants were released on recognizance leaving the Criminal Court arraignment appearance.

In the burglary

cases defendants were far more likely to be considered at high FTA risk if released on ROR, while defendants in the sexual assault cases were far more likely to be recommended for ROR. In approximately two-thirds of each category’s cases the severity of the top arrest and Criminal Court arraignment charges was the same, and this was only slightly greater in the cases in which a CODIS profile was obtained. Defendants were held on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment in approximately three-fourths of each category’s cases.

46

A far greater percentage of burglary category cases ended with a conviction (77.4%) than in sexual assault cases (51.5%). Conversely, sexual assault cases were disposed in favor of the defendant (dismissal or an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) in two-fifths of the cases. In the overwhelming majority of the cases disposed either by a conviction or by a dismissal/ACD the Forensic Biology report was completed prior to the disposition date. Whether or not a CODIS profile was found appeared to have made little difference in conviction versus dismissal/ACD rates. However, when a CODIS profile was found charge-severity reduction between the Criminal Court arraignment and conviction charge was less likely to have occurred.

Among the convicted burglary cases 44.3% had the same arraignment and conviction charge when a CODIS profile was found, in comparison with only 30.7% when no CODIS profile was obtained. In convicted sexual assault cases there was no change in charge severities between arraignment and conviction in 27.8% of the cases with a CODIS profile obtained, in comparison with 21.8% of the cases in which no CODIS profile was obtained.

The presence or absence of a CODIS profile appeared to have had little effect on case processing times to the conviction or the dismissal/ACD outcome for either category’s cases. Among the burglary cases convictions came a little bit more quickly when a CODIS profile was obtained, but in sexual assault cases the average case processing time to the conviction came a bit more slowly when a CODIS profile was obtained. This pattern also was found between the two crime categories in regard to average time to dismissal/ACD. That is, in burglary cases the finding in favor of the defendant came on average a bit more quickly when a CODIS profile was obtained; the dismissal/ACD on average occurred a bit more slowly for sexual assault cases when a CODIS profile was obtained.

To better assess whether the work of OCME had an influence on the criminal justice outcomes in these cases statistical tests were done using logistic regression models.

The specific focus was on whether the timing and testing of biological evidence for DNA, and/or the results of this testing, influenced the decision to prosecute arrests or the outcome or case processing times in prosecuted cases.

47

We tested the influence of delay in OCME receipt of biological evidence after the incident, and whether a CODIS profile was obtained, our independent variables, on the likelihood of conviction and charge severity depreciation. These tests took into account a variety of other factors (other independent variables) that might also significantly influence case outcomes. Because of the many differences between the burglary and sexual cases a separate analysis was done for each case type.

In burglary cases a delay of more than a week in providing biological evidence to be tested lessened the likelihood of conviction. For convicted burglary cases obtaining a CODIS profile in advance of Criminal Court arraignment significantly reduced the likelihood of any charge reduction.

However this effect was no longer statistically

significant after controlling for the effect of arraignment charge severity on charge severity depreciation. As discussed in the report text, the finding of a CODIS profile in advance of Criminal Court arraignment may lead to an arraignment charging decision sustainable through to the conviction.

There was a marginally significant increase in the likelihood of conviction in sexual assault cases when OCME received biological evidence to be tested after arraignment but before the conviction and that material eventually had a CODIS profile obtained. In addition, these cases were marginally significantly less likely to have had any charge reduction. Further, obtaining a CODIS profile reported prior to the conviction court appearance lessened the likelihood of charge reduction by two or more severity classification levels, and this effect was significant even after controlling for the effect of other significant variables.

In summary, both the descriptive and statistical measurement portions of this research suggest that OCME testing of biological evidence for DNA, and the reporting of these findings, and especially the presence of a CODIS profile being obtained in advance of case disposition, can influence convictions and at least some elements of case processing in burglary and sexual assault cases. In addition, it is possible that the work of OCME in burglary cases may have led to arrests as well as successful prosecutions given the far greater likelihood that OCME received and even completed its testing in advance of arrests in these study cases. However, delay in OCME receipt of burglary biological evidence for testing lessened the likelihood of conviction.

48

How strongly the work of OCME affects the different decision points examined in this study remain uncertain because of a variety of data limitations. Primarily we could not determine from the data whether the DNA profile obtained and submitted to CODIS matched or exonerated the arrested person(s), nor the strength of other evidence in prosecuted cases including the results of OCME’s testing for DNA evidence on other biological samples in these cases. In addition, the study cases represented only a very small proportion of all burglary and sexual assault arrests in either calendar year 2008 or 2009.