Juvenile Offenders 99

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

JUVENILE OFFENDER CASES IN SPECIALIZED AND NON-SPECIALIZED COURT PARTS IN NEW YORK CITY’S SUPREME COURTS: 1994-95 and 1995-96

Akiva Liberman, Ph.D., Bill Raleigh, M.A., Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.

FINAL REPORT November 1999

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

JUVENILE OFFENDER CASES IN SPECIALIZED AND NON-SPECIALIZED COURT PARTS IN NEW YORK CITY’S SUPREME COURTS: 1994-95 and 1995-96

Akiva Liberman, Ph.D., Bill Raleigh, M.A., Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.

This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org\research\research.htm

© 1999 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 5 1994-95 SUPREME COURT CASE PROCESSING ............................................ 8 1995-96 DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................... 11 THE SPECIAL CASE OF ROBBERY 1............................................................. 15 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 20 EXHIBITS: 1. Borough Usage of JO Parts (a) 1994-1995 Borough Usage of JO Parts. (b) 1995-1996 Borough Usage of JO Parts.

IA. 1994-1995 Supreme Court Outcome Flowchart.

IB. 1994-1995 Supreme Court Processing Time Flowchart.

IIA. 1995-1996 Supreme Court Outcome Flowchart.

IIB. 1995-1996 Supreme Court Processing Time Flowchart.

APPENDIX A: 1994-1995 Tables A1. Supreme Court Indictment Charge by Defendant Age. A2. Supreme Court Arraignment.

A3. Supreme Court Disposition.

A4. Supreme Court Sentencing.

APPENDIX B: 1995-1996 Tables B1. Supreme Court Indictment Charge by Defendant Age. B2. Supreme Court Arraignment.

B3. Supreme Court Disposition.

B4. Supreme Court Sentencing.

APPENDIX C: Robbery 1 Tables.

C1. Supreme Court Arraignment: Robbery 1 Charges (1994-1995).

C2. Supreme Court Disposition: Robbery 1 Charges (1994-1995).

C3. Supreme Court Sentencing: Robbery 1 Charges (1994-1995).

C4. Supreme Court Arraignment: Robbery 1 Charges (1995-1996).

C5. Supreme Court Disposition: Robbery 1 Charges (1995-1996).

C6. Supreme Court Sentencing: Robbery 1 Charges (1995-1996).

APPENDIX D: JO Charges.

D1. Juvenile Offender Charges in New York.

Acknowledgements An earlier version of this report was prepared by Dr. Akiva Liberman and Mr. Bill Raleigh, the study’s principal researchers and former research staff at the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc. Under the title, “Specialized Court Parts for Juvenile Offenders in New York City’s Supreme Court: Case Processing Activity in 1994-95 and 1995-96,” they also presented portions of the research at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. The final project report was completed

by Dr. Freda F. Solomon, CJA’s Deputy Research Director, with the assistance of Ms. Alexandra S. Gorelik.

This research utilizes portions of data sets created under the auspices of the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (OCJC) when the City of New York was participating in an Annie E. Casey Foundation funded project known as the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). In addition to data collected by CJA in the course of its pretrial services and research activities, information was supplied for the JDAI data project by a variety of agencies involved in both the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems in New York City. However, CJA and the co-authors alone are responsible for the research design, methodology, analyses and conclusions in this report.

Juvenile Offender Cases in Specialized and Non-Specialized Court Parts in New York City’s Supreme Courts: 1994-95 and 1995-96

INTRODUCTION The History of Specialized Court Parts for Youth in New York City's Adult Courts Over the last half-century, specialized court parts to handle "youth" have operated intermittently within New York State’s adult court system. In New York State, the age of criminal responsibility is 16 years old. Legislation passed in 1943 provided for separate treatment of 16- to 19-year-old “youthful offenders” in a variety of ways, including court parts “separate and apart from the other parts of the court which are then being held for proceedings pertaining to adults charged with crimes” (Corrierro, 1990).

Although the statutory requirement for separate court parts was removed in 1971, separate court parts for 16- to 19-year-old youths continued to operate in adult courts in New York City, until the last remaining “youth part” (in Queens) was abolished in 1986 (Corrierro, 1990; Singer, 1996).

Thus, by the 1990s, adult court cases of teenagers were being handled in the allpurpose parts along with the cases of adults. At the same time, the adult court was handling the cases of even younger defendants after the passage, in 1978, of New York State’s Juvenile Offender law that moved initial jurisdiction for the cases of some juveniles younger than 16 to the adult courts. The law designated 14- and 15-year-olds charged with any of fifteen serious felony offenses, or 13-year-olds charged with murder in the second degree, as "juvenile offenders" (JOs), to be brought directly into the adult court for prosecution. Because all these JO charges are felonies, they move through New York City’s two-tiered court system, whereby the case is initiated by an arraignment in the Criminal (lower) Court (CC) and then, if sustained as a JO-eligible felony prosecution, brought into the Supreme (upper) Court (SC) where it again will be initiated at an arraignment appearance. (Although prosecuted in the adult court system, JOs are housed in separate juvenile facilities when detained, and are sentenced under different guidelines when convicted.)

Transfers to Juvenile Court. In New York's waiver-down system, the adult court has initial jurisdiction for processing cases involving JO charges, but some of these cases subsequently migrate to the juvenile court in several ways: If at any time, including disposition, charges are reduced so that the case no longer involves any JO charge, then the case must be transferred to juvenile court. Second, the adult court may transfer JO cases to the juvenile court at any point; approximately one quarter of JO cases were transferred down in fiscal year 1992, (July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992) (Liberman, 1997). Finally, an unknown number of cases are transferred informally, by being formally dismissed in adult court, after which the youth is rearrested on lesser charges that are filed in juvenile court.

-1-

Establishment of Specialized Supreme Court Parts for Juvenile Offenders In 1992 and 1993, a specialized SC part was established in each of New York City’s four large boroughs (excluding Staten Island) to handle the cases of the 13- to 15year-olds. These specialized court parts began operating in Manhattan and Queens during the summer and fall of 1992, and in Brooklyn and the Bronx during the fall of 1993. By 1995, across the four boroughs, the specialized court parts combined heard about two-thirds of the JO cases at some point in Supreme Court processing. In contrast to the earlier youth parts, which handled the cases of 16- to 19-year-olds, these “JO Parts” (hereafter JOPs), handle the cases primarily of defendants under 16 years of age. (In Queens, a different “youth part” is now handling the cases of 16- and 17-yearolds.)

These specialized JOPs were established with several goals, similar to those which motivated the establishment of juvenile courts almost a century earlier, based on the recognition that juveniles have special needs and could benefit from somewhat different treatment. For example, parents generally play a more important role with juveniles, different alternative-to-detention and alternative-to-incarceration programs may be available, and more intensive supervision may be appropriate under probation.

However, because JO cases constitute only a small percentage of the SC caseload, any special considerations are hard to apply consistently when these cases are distributed throughout the court parts. Thus, JOPs were intended to concentrate relevant institutional resources, and to facilitate timely and regular contact between the court and actors working with juvenile offenders. These include both public agencies such as the Probation and Police Departments, as well as private agencies offering alternatives to detention or incarceration. It was also hoped that more individualized and meaningful interaction with the court would increase the possibility that these teenagers' initial interaction with the adult criminal justice system could be utilized more actively to reduce the likelihood of subsequent re-offending. These general goals, of course, are similar to the goals of other specialized courts, including drug courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts.

Currently, all the specialized SC parts may handle JO cases at and subsequent to arraignment. However, in some boroughs no cases were initially arraigned in the JO parts; instead cases were assigned to the JO parts only if they were continued after SC arraignment. That is, in Manhattan, the JOP began conducting arraignments in the summer of 1995, and in Brooklyn, the JOP began arraigning cases in May 1997.

The JDAI Integrated Annual Data Sets Coinciding with the movement to reestablish specialized court parts for JOs, New York City was participating in the Annie E. Casey Foundation funded Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). As part of this initiative, New York City developed annual, fiscal year (July 1 through June 30 of the following year), data sets about juveniles in the adult and juvenile justice systems. These annual data sets integrated information about juvenile offenders, as relevant, from a number of agencies involved in the City's criminal justice system: the Police Department, the New York City Departments of Probation and Juvenile Justice, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., and the Corporation

-2-

Counsel. Using the integrated data sets for fiscal year (FY) 1992, CJA produced reports on case processing of juveniles in both the adult and juvenile court systems (Liberman & Winterfield, 1996; see also Liberman, 1997), and on the over-representation of minorities (Liberman, Winterfield, & McElroy, 1996). The data from FY 1992 were also used to help the Department of Probation develop targeting criteria for its Expanded Alternative to Detention program.

Integrated annual data sets for JO arrests in fiscal years 1993 through 1996 subsequently became available. Thus, it has become possible to examine how JOPs have been handling JO cases. This report uses two of these annual data sets to provide descriptive information concerning SC processing of JO cases handled in JOPs and in non-specialized Supreme Court parts in the two years after these parts were established in all four boroughs. One data set covers cases of JOs arrested in a twelve-month period of 1994-95, i.e., FY 1995 (July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995), and the other in 1995-96, i.e., FY 1996 (July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996). In each annual data set JO arrests during the fiscal year were followed through the outcome in the adult court system, up to the SC sentencing for cases resulting in conviction, or until the end of the following February — i.e., 8 months past the end of the fiscal year. Thus the time available for case completion ranges from 8 months (for arrests at the end of the fiscal year) to 20 months (for arrests at the beginning of the fiscal year). For this research, only cases that were sustained in the lower court as felonies subject to adult court 1 prosecution and moved into the SC were analyzed.

Scope of the Current Report This report provides basic descriptive information concerning case processing and court outcomes of JOs in the specialized JOPs across the four boroughs in comparison to JO cases processed in non-specialized SC parts. It is important to stress that this report is descriptive rather than analytic in nature. It describes the activity at 2 selected decision points (or milestones) in case processing— at the SC arraignment, at 3 SC disposition and, for convicted JOs, at the sentencing— and allows some comparisons between what occurs at these decision points in the specialized and nonspecialized parts. As such, the report may serve to raise important questions about why some differences are found. To answer these important questions, however, requires analytic activity of a different order. For example, in principle, any difference that is found between the JO and non-JO parts might reflect two very different processes. The difference might be the result of having specialized court parts. Alternatively, the 1

Felony prosecutions are brought to the Supreme Court in New York City in several ways. Most cases are initiated in the Criminal Court and then transferred to the Supreme Court either after an indictment by a grand jury or by agreement to proceed using a Superior Court Information (SCI), whereby indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. A very small proportion of all felony cases is brought directly into the Supreme Court, bypassing Criminal Court. Information about any “direct indictment” cases, in general very rare among JO cases, was not available in the data used in this research.

2 SC arraignment was defined in these data as the first court appearance at which a defendant entered a plea (of either guilty or not guilty) to the charges or, absent the entering of a plea, a final SC outcome, such as a dismissal of the indictment, appeared in the court record.

3 Unless otherwise noted, the disposition is the first appearance at which a determinative outcome is reached in the case in SC, or at the last SC appearance in the study period for cases without a determinative outcome.

-3-

difference might reflect practices in case assignment to the specialized parts, a process that precedes any activity in those parts themselves. If so, the difference would not be caused by the activity of the specialized parts. In addition, explanations for differences may also vary by borough. Addressing such causal questions, which are critical for evaluating the effects of having specialized court parts, is beyond the scope of this report.

The scope of this report also is limited to decision making in New York’s felony court, the Supreme Court. However, it is important to note that prior to arraignment in the Supreme Court all of the cases in this study were initiated in the Criminal Court, and a decision subsequently was made to retain the case for felony prosecution in the adult court system. The current report does not consider those early stages of case processing, which are conducted in the Criminal Court, because the specialized JOPs only operate in Supreme Court.

-4-

OVERVIEW Our discussion concerns cases handled in JOPs, in comparison to cases handled in other parts. Among JOP cases, some of the cases disposed in JOPs were initially arraigned in those specialized parts; other cases were arraigned in general-purpose court parts, but were then handled in JOPs. These two types of JOP cases— those processed in SC entirely in the JOPs, and “mixed-part” cases that are processed postarraignment in the JOPs— are distinguished in the report.

JO cases processed entirely in non-JOPs are examined separately, and are further distinguished by their method of case processing. Comparable to JOP cases, some non-specialized court-part cases are brought from CC to SC by means of an indictment. In another type of case processing, plea negotiations are completed prior to the presentation of the case to a grand jury. The defendant then waives his/her right to indictment by grand jury, agreeing to plead guilty in the SC based on an alternative charging instrument known as a Superior Court Information, or SCI. By waiving indictment, and with the disposition predetermined, the case is moved from the Criminal Court to the SC arraignment for the formal entry of the guilty plea. In SCI case processing the case normally moves from the final CC appearance to SC arraignment for disposition on the same day, so that there is no measurable time between these two decision points and no pre-disposition release status in SC. SCI cases are not handled in the specialized JOPs, and their distinctive processing features make them distinguishable from other non-JOP cases. Therefore, we have not included SCI cases in the “non-JOP cases” category but rather treat them as a unique set of cases. SCI cases are shown as a separate category on the exhibits in this report, and are discussed in relation to JO and non-JO part cases where comparisons can be made. To a great extent the focus of this report concentrates on comparisons between cases in the JOP and non-JOP categories, and only secondarily the SCI cases.

Flowcharts and Tables. The illustrations referred to in the text of this report are located in the back and are organized in sections. Much of the case processing and dispositional information is summarized on flowcharts. For each year, one flowchart shows case flow and processing information, with highlighted results, at three decision points: SC arraignment, SC disposition, and at SC sentencing for cases resulting in conviction. Another flowchart shows court-processing times, in mean (the mathematical average) number of days, between each of the three decision points examined, for each group of cases and within groups by defendants’ release status. These flowcharts along with Exhibit 1: Borough Differences, discussed directly below, are found in the first section. This is followed by Appendices A and B, which each contain four detailed tables displaying data for the 1994-94 and 1995-96 cases, respectively. Appendix C contains the tables for the report section that examines Robbery 1 charges.

(Throughout the text, percentages shown on tables have been rounded to the nearest whole number.) Lastly, Appendix D contains a tabular display of the statutorily eligible charges and related information that, under New York State’s Juvenile Offender Law, brings the cases examined in this study into the adult court system for prosecution.

-5-

The Specialized JO Parts in the Boroughs Overall, slightly less than half of all the JO cases examined (219 of 496 cases) were arraigned in JOPs in 1994-1995, and about another quarter of JO cases (119 cases) were disposed in the specialized parts that had not been arraigned there (Flowchart IA). Similar numbers are found in the 1995-1996 data set (Flowchart IIA).

Although this study takes a citywide (excluding Staten Island) perspective, it is important to note that during the years under examination, the boroughs used their JOPs somewhat differently (Exhibit 1):

Both Manhattan and the Bronx were most likely to use their specialized parts for both the arraignment and disposition decision points for JO cases. But while Manhattan handled almost all JO cases in its JOP, the Bronx handled only about half of JO cases in its JOP.

Queens was most likely to assign additional cases post-arraignment to its JOP. About half of the Queens JO cases were both arraigned and disposed in the JOP, and about another quarter of JO cases were disposed there.

Brooklyn used its JOP for disposition only post-arraignment, and disposed almost all of its JO cases there. Cases were not arraigned in the Brooklyn JOP during either periods under examination in this report. (Note: the Brooklyn JOP began arraigning cases during 1997.)

Charge and Age Distributions in JOPs versus Other Parts How do the cases handled in JOPs compare to the cases handled in the other parts? Given that across the City’s four largest boroughs most JO cases were processed in JOPs, this question is best asked as: "which cases are not handled in the specialized parts?" To address this question, we inspected the top charge at SC arraignment (that is, the top indictment charge, or the top charge on the charging instrument used for SCI cases). We examined (a) cases handled in JOPs at both the arraignment and disposition milestones, (b) those handled by JOPs only postarraignment, (c) cases handled in other SC parts (excluding SCI cases), and (d) SCI cases, all of which are processed in non-JOPs. The breakdown of charge and age distribution in each set is calculated separately. (Appendix A, Table A1, and Appendix B, Table B1) About half of the cases in each set have a top charge of Robbery 1, (a B felony); the second most common charge in each set is Robbery 2. The charges ultimately disposed in JOPs do not differ appreciably as a function of whether or not they were also arraigned in JOPs. At least in regard to the most common charges it would appear that whether or not a JO case is arraigned in a JOP is largely a matter of borough practice.

However, Murder 2 comprised a greater proportion of the caseload in nonspecialized parts, constituting more than 10% of the non-SCI cases arraigned and disposed in a non-JOP. Conversely, the non-JOPs had a somewhat smaller proportion of Robbery 1 cases, which are B-felony cases, although this was offset by somewhat

-6-

more cases on other B-felony charges. In combination, the top SC indictment charge in the non-JOPs was somewhat more severe on average than in JOPs. SCI cases contain a considerably larger percentage of Robbery 2 cases and the smallest proportion of A-felony class charges among the different sets of cases examined. Because Robbery 2 is a C felony, the lowest class of JO-eligible charges, this leads SCI cases to have a lower charge class on average.

The Special Case of Robbery 1. This difference in the top charges of the cases handled in JOPs versus other parts highlights the difficulty in drawing causal inferences from the descriptive data in the current report (see Scope of the Current Report, above).

However, given that Robbery 1 cases comprise about half of the total caseload, we have examined those cases separately. Nonetheless, we caution that even for Robbery 1 cases, causal inferences are questionable without analytic efforts of another order. That is, we expect that the cases excluded from the JOPs may differ systematically for the other cases, perhaps in terms of relevant legal variables such as the defendants’ criminal histories, or extralegal variables such as family situations, race, or demeanor.

Thus any differences found in case processing may be due to case differences rather than to the specialized parts per se. Estimating the effects of the JOPs will require analyses beyond the scope of this report.

Age. About two-thirds of JO arrestees were 15 years old, and about a third were 14 years old (Tables A1 & B1). This is fairly consistent across sets of non-SCI cases in both years. However, in 1994-95, SCI cases contained slightly more 14-year-olds, making defendants in SCI cases somewhat younger on average than defendants in nonSCI cases in that time period.

-7-

1994-95 SUPREME COURT CASE PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES 1. SC Arraignment (Flowchart IA and Appendix A, Table A2).

Arraignment Disposition. Few defendants in non-SCI cases pled guilty at arraignment, whether in JOPs (12%) or other parts (11%).

Release Status. JOPs detained somewhat fewer defendants at arraignment than did the other SC parts in non-SCI cases (57% vs. 61%, combining remand orders with failures to make bail for all defendants with a known release status). Yet, in JOPs, this detention at arraignment was more likely to be a remand, whereas in the non-JOPs detention was more likely to result from a failure to make bail. These patterns, of JOPs being somewhat less likely to detain but more likely to use remand orders as the means of detention, remain even when limiting the comparison only to those who pled not guilty at SC arraignment in JO and non-JO part cases.

In SCI cases the vast majority (88%) of defendants was released on recognizance (ROR) pending sentencing. This is much higher even than for those nonSCI defendants who pled guilty at SC arraignment after indictment, of whom only 35% in the JOPs, and 43% in the non-specialized parts, were ROR’d.

Although the lower detention rate in JOPs seems consistent with the non-JOP cases being somewhat more severe on average (see previous description of Charge Distributions), the same result is found when the we limit the cases to those indicted on Robbery 1, as will be considered later in this report. Further, this would not explain why, when detention is used, it is far more likely to be a result of a remand order in the JOPs rather than an inability to make the amount of set bail as more frequently occurs in the non-JOP cases. Disentangling such causal questions, as already noted, is beyond the scope of this report.

2. SC Disposition (Flowchart IA; Table A3).

Final Disposition. The conviction rate for all non-SCI cases— combining guilty pleas and trial convictions — was very similar in JOPs and in other parts (81% and 5 79%).4 As with SCI cases, all of which resulted in conviction, most non-SCI cases also were disposed with a guilty plea, and this was even more likely in JOPs than in other parts (80% vs. 71%). (These data cannot distinguish two very different possibilities: Perhaps judges in JOPs somehow encouraged guilty pleas; alternatively, perhaps cases in which defendants were unlikely to plead guilty were specifically assigned to non-

4

Similar results emerge if we limit the cases to those that reached completion, and eliminate cases which remained unresolved by the end of the follow-up period. We then find that in the JO parts, 87.9% of completed cases were convictions, compared to 84.4% in the non-specialized parts.

5 As discussed previously in the report, JO cases initiated in the adult court system may be transferred into the Family (juvenile) Court at any decision point. Several of the SCI cases in this study were transferred into the juvenile court system at the SC arraignment, presumably as part of the negotiated plea agreement; the “disposition” shown in the report’s exhibits for these cases is the Family Court transfer.

-8-

specialized parts.) In contrast, the non-JO parts had more cases that were found guilty (i.e., that went to trial) than did JOPs (8% vs. 1%).

Release Status. Similar to the release decision at arraignment, JO parts detained fewer defendants than did the non-JO parts, whether comparing only those convicted and continued for sentencing (48% vs. 55%, not shown), or among all defendants in cases with a release status at the disposition milestone (47% vs. 56%). For all defendants in convicted cases, the detention rate still was lowest, less than 11%, for defendants in SCI cases who entered their guilty pleas at SC arraignment.

3. SC Sentence Following Conviction (Flowchart 1A; Table A4) We examine two elements of sentencing: First, did a defendant receive a sentence of incarceration, a split sentence of incarceration followed by probation, or only probation (a.k.a. "straight probation")? Second, was Youthful Offender (YO) status granted? YO status lowers the term of the sentence and provides for the record to be sealed. (Note that YO status is not available for class-A felony convictions. Thus, for example, any Murder 2 conviction would be ineligible for YO status.)

Sentencing in JOP cases was somewhat more lenient than in non-JOP cases, with a higher percentage of defendants receiving straight probation (46% vs. 35%) and receiving YO status (66% vs. 57%). Sentences in SCI cases were the most lenient, as might be expected because of the greater proportion of less severe charges in this category of cases. Most of those sentenced in SCI cases received probation (78%) and 6 most were granted YO status (86%).

4. Processing Times (Flowchart IB).

7 Three processing times were considered: (a) Arraignment time: mean number of days from Criminal Court disposition to SC Arraignment. (This report is generally limited to SC— rather than CC— case processing.

Still, this time interval is considered because of the possibility the JOPs might have court calendars either more or less full than other parts, resulting in different time until the case can be arraigned.) (b) Disposition time: mean number of days from SC arraignment to disposition; (c) Sentencing time: mean number of days from the disposition to sentencing for cases in which there was a conviction.

At first glance, it appears that the JOP cases were slower to reach each of these milestones in 1994-95. On average, cases in the JOPs were about a week slower to reach SC arraignment (a mean of 27 days) than cases either arraigned in a non-JOP but subsequently disposed in the JOP (a mean of 17 days), or cases processed entirely 6

If sentences in both SCI and other non-JOP cases were combined, sentencing in all non-specialized court cases would have seemed more lenient, (overall probation rate 56%; YO status 71%), making sentencing in JOPs seem relatively harsh.

7 Note that these processing times include only cases with a determinative outcome in the adult court system and with definite dates for both decision points. Thus, pending cases are not included. In general, this would tend to result in underestimates of times because cases with extremely long times are excluded.

-9-

8 in a non-JOP (a mean of 20 days). JOPs then apparently took about three weeks longer to dispose of cases, (a mean of 114 days for cases both arraigned and disposed in JOPs and 122 days for cases disposed in the JOPs subsequent to arraignment), in comparison to the non-specialized parts that processed non-SCI cases in their entirety (a mean of 95 days) – but see below. Finally, JOPs averaged about two months longer to impose sentence than other parts (a mean of 113 vs. 47 days).

Release Status. The time between disposition and sentencing showed the only clear effect of release status: Defendants convicted at disposition and detained were sentenced appreciably faster than those released pending sentencing, both in JOPs and 9 non-JOPs. (Average time to SC arraignment time was equivalent whether or not defendants were detained at CC disposition; time between SC arraignment and disposition showed no simple pattern.)

The Interaction of Release Status and Court Part on Disposition Time. When we examine disposition time as a function of both release status and court part we find a curious thing. Looking only at detained defendants in non-SCI cases (the “in” category on Flowchart IB) between the SC arraignment and disposition milestones, we find that JOPs disposed cases an average of two weeks faster than the non-specialized court parts. Disposition for detained defendants took a mean of 131 days in cases in the JOPs at both arraignment and disposition and a mean of 134 days in cases disposed but not arraigned in the JOPs, versus 150 days for defendants in cases both arraigned and disposed in a non-JOP. Similarly, looking only at defendants released between SC arraignment and disposition (the “out” category), we also find the JOPs disposing cases somewhat faster than other parts (a mean of 149 and 103 days vs. 161 days).

Why, then, was the overall mean time to disposition in JOPs, in comparison with non-JOPs, three weeks slower, on average, as discussed earlier? The answer would appear to turn on the cases disposed at SC arraignment (the “same day” category), primarily comprised of cases in which the defendant pled guilty. Cases disposed at SC arraignment have a time from arraignment to disposition of zero, and no applicable release status between the arraignment and disposition decision points. Although the actual number of such cases is similar in the non-JOPs and the JOPs, they represent a greater proportion of the total number of non-JOP cases (29 of 76) than do cases disposed in the JOPs at arraignment (31 of 182). Thus, cases disposed on the same day in the non-JOPs more greatly influence the arithmetic average (i.e., mean) number of days between SC arraignment and disposition. Including their disposition times in our calculation lowers average time from arraignment to disposition in non-JO parts more than in JOPs. 10 When we limit our consideration to cases not disposed at arraignment, we find that disposition was faster in JOPs, and the differences found in disposition time may be an artifact rather than an effect of the SC's specialized parts.

8

Because all SCI cases were moved immediately from Criminal to Supreme Court they are not included in this discussion.

9 The same was found for SCI cases.

10 Had SCI cases, which also have zero time between SC arraignment and disposition and no predisposition release status, been added to the calculations the difference in time to disposition between cases in the JO parts and non-specialized court parts would have been even greater.

-10-

1995-96 DEVELOPMENTS The results for the second year under examination are both more and less informative than for the preceding year. Because by July 1995 the JOPs had been operating for more than a year in all four boroughs, transition problems would be expected to be resolved, resulting in more consistent and stable operations. Thus, 1995-1996 results would be expected to be more informative. Unfortunately, however, the data collection for arrests in this latter twelve-month period may be less reliable than the previous years’ data because of changes in the way court processing and outcome information was obtained. During this time period CJA was moving from manual dataentry to an automated, electronic data-transfer system, resulting in transition problems for some months. The data are presumed to be less complete, particularly for cases dismissed or receiving YO status. This problem may artificially inflate the severity of disposition and sentencing results.

1. SC Arraignment (Flowchart IIA; Appendix B, Table B2) Arraignment Disposition. Arraignment dispositions in 1995-96 were very similar to 1994-95, both in the specialized and non-specialized parts. Few defendants in either the JOP or non-JOP cases pled guilty at SC arraignment; over 85% of the defendants in both of these sets of cases entered a not guilty plea at arraignment.

Release Status. Detention increased in the JOPs while decreasing for defendants in non-SCI cases in the other parts. Thus, in a reversal from the earlier year, JOPs now detained more defendants at arraignment than did the non-JOPs (63% vs. 52%). However, as in the previous year, detention in the JOPs was more likely to result from a remand while in the non-JOPs it was more likely due to a failure the make the set bail at the arraignment appearance. In addition, the proportion of defendants in SCI cases detained at arraignment also rose, to 22% from 11% in the previous time period, although a substantial majority (69%) continued to be ROR’d.

2. SC Disposition (Table B3) Final Disposition. The 1995-96 data set contained more cases without a final disposition than had the 1994-95 data. This was particularly true for cases disposed in JOPs. This may simply reflect problems with this year’s data, as mentioned above, or may be a result of longer case-processing times. Unfortunately, this is hard to assess with our data, because the time period for tracking a case to disposition from arrest varies considerably in our data sets, ranging from 8 to 20 months (see The JDAI Integrated Data Sets previously described). However, among cases with a known disposition, once again the conviction rate was very similar in JO and non-JO parts, (91% vs. 89%), and most convictions resulted from guilty pleas rather than trial convictions.

Release Status. JOPs detained a somewhat greater proportion of defendants than did the non-JOPs for all cases with a release status at disposition (49% vs. 45%), or calculated solely for defendants whose cases were continued for sentencing after conviction (51% vs. 45%.) This is a reversal of the previous year, mostly due to a

-11-

decrease in detention in the non-JOPs, where the detention rate fell about 10 percentage points, from 56% for all defendants and from 55% for only those convicted.

The percentage point increase in the JOPs rates was much smaller, rising from 47% for all defendants and 48% only for convicted defendants in the previous year.

Thus, JOPs now detained a greater proportion of defendants than did the other parts in non-SCI cases, both at arraignment and at disposition, which had not been the case in the earlier year. In comparison to 1994-95, the detention rate at SC arraignment increased in the JOPs in 1995-96, while declining in non-JOP cases; at SC disposition, the detention rate in JOPs remained comparable to the previous year while decreasing in non-JOP cases in the later time period.

3. SC Sentence Following Conviction (Table B4) Sentences in the JOPs were less lenient than in the previous year, and showed about a 10-percentage-point shift from straight probation to incarceration, from 46% straight probation and 47% incarceration in 1994-95, to 36% probation and 57% incarceration in 1995-95. At the same time, the non-JO parts showed a smaller shift in the opposite direction, from 35% probation and 53% incarceration, to 38% probation and 48% incarceration in the later period. (The use of a split sentence in the JOPs remained about the same (7%) in both periods, while increasing slightly for non-JOP cases in the later period, from 12% to 14%).

Sentences for defendants convicted in SCI cases continued to be the most lenient. About the same proportion of SCI cases received a sentence of straight probation in both periods (78% and 77%), with some change in the use of incarceration (11% in 1994-95 and 15% in 1995-96) in comparison to split sentences, (11% versus 7% in the later period).

In the JOPs the proportion of cases in which YO status was granted remained the same in both time periods (66%). The proportion of cases in which YO status was granted increased in the second year’s data for both non-JOP cases (from 57% to 62%), and for SCI cases (from 86% to 89%). The result is that sentencing in the JOPs in 199596 was not clearly more lenient than in the non-JO parts, as it had been in 1994-95.

We should note that the number of JOP cases with pending sentences in our data rose considerably in 1995-96, to 29% (from 6% in 1994-95). Importantly, this does not reflect a surge in warrants; only 7 of the 70 cases shown with the sentence pending had warrants. The non-JOPs also show an increase in the number of pending sentences, up from 8% in 1994-95 to 18% in 1995-96. Only SCI cases show a decrease in cases pending sentencing but this is more than offset by the missing category. This increase in pending cases may merely reflect problems with the 1995-1996 data, previously discussed.

4. Processing Time (Flowchart IIB).

Overall average processing times were generally quicker than in the prior year, particularly in JOPs. As a result, comparisons between JOPs and non-JO parts are less simple.

-12-

Non-JO parts were, on average, several days slower to arraign cases than in the 11 earlier year, while JOPs expedited arraignment by several days. The result was that the relative speed of non-JO parts’ arraignment in the earlier year was cut in half, for which this research cannot provide a singular explanation.

The mean number of days from SC arraignment to disposition declined by 25 days for cases handled completely in JOPs (to 89 days, from 114 days in the prior year).

Time from arraignment to disposition declined by 12 days for non-SCI cases handled completely in non-JO parts (to a mean of 83 days, from 95). For cases arraigned in a non-JO part and then disposed in JOPs the mean number of days from SC arraignment to disposition changed the least and remained slowest, (119 days, from 122 days in the earlier period).

Time from a conviction disposition to the sentencing decision point, for the cases for which this was known, would appear to have been considerably expedited in the JOPs from the prior year. In the JOPs the mean time from disposition to sentencing decreased to 89 days from 113 days in the previous period. Nonetheless, this 89 days to sentence in JOPs was considerably slower than for non-JOP cases, which averaged 47 days in both time periods. Time from disposition to sentencing increased for SCI cases in the later period, rising to an average 47 days from 40 days.

Release Status. As in the earlier year, sentencing was considerably faster when defendants had been detained rather than released upon conviction. (Once again, arraignment time was similar regardless of release status, and time from arraignment to disposition showed no clear pattern.)

Release Status and Court Part. As in the prior year’s data, considering release status and court part simultaneously proved illuminating. First, we find that the cases arraigned in non-JO parts but disposed in JOPs showed unexpected results. For these "mixed part" cases, detainees' cases once again took longer than released defendants’ cases (124 vs. 112 mean number of days), which is the reverse of the time differential between released and detained defendants in cases handled entirely in either a JO or non-JO part in both time periods. However, only for defendants in mixed-part cases was there a decrease in the difference in average time to disposition from SC arraignment between these two release-status categories. (In both JOP and non-JOP cases the difference in the mean time from arraignment to disposition for detained and released defendants increased in the 1995-96 data.) And, the calculation of average time for mixed-part cases is unaffected by the influence of “same day” processing as this is not applicable for this set of cases.

Restricting ourselves to comparing cases handled either entirely in JOPs or in non-JO parts seems to show simpler patterns. As in the earlier year, detainees' cases were disposed considerably faster in JOPs than in non-JO parts (a mean of 93 vs. 136 days). Released defendants’ cases also were disposed considerably faster in JOPs than in non-JO parts (128 vs. 157 days). Yet, as in the prior year, a greater percentage 11

Again, SCI cases are excluded from this discussion as they are considered to have zero days between CC disposition and SC arraignment, and between SC arraignment and disposition.

-13-

of defendants in non-JOP cases than in JOP cases pled guilty at the SC arraignment milestone, and once again these same-day cases influence overall average time to disposition. Thus, aggregate numbers which leave these cases in our calculations mask the relatively speedy disposition in JOPs. For cases not disposed at arraignment, JOPs disposed cases more quickly than the non-JO parts.

Summary. In summary, two main results for processing time replicate across both years. First, JOPs disposed of cases more quickly than did non-JOPs when we exclude cases disposed on the same day as the SC arraignment. (By the very nature of their processing, SCI cases took the least time to disposition.) Secondly, cases disposed in the JOPs took the longest to reach the sentencing decision point from SC court disposition, and the slower sentencing in JOPs was most striking for defendants who were released rather than detained at disposition.

-14-

THE SPECIAL CASE OF ROBBERY 1 Because Robbery 1 was the top prosecuted charge in about half of the cases, in both JOPs and other parts, we reexamined the subset of Robbery 1 cases in both JO and non-JO parts, excluding SCI cases. This leads to more comparable sets of cases.

In doing so, it reduces the possibility that overall differences in processing results are due to differences in the severity of the top indictment charge, as in the greater proportion of murder cases in the non-JO parts. Nonetheless, this alone remains insufficient to produce equivalent cases, which would require examining a variety of additional aspects of the case and the defendants’ criminal history.

1. SC Arraignment (Appendix C, Tables C1 and C4).

Arraignment Disposition. Arraignment results were essentially the same as those for the larger caseload. The vast majority of defendants in Robbery 1 cases pled not guilty at SC arraignment in both JO and non-JOPs, in both time periods, regardless of whether only Robbery 1 or all cases are considered. Although infrequent, the percentage of Robbery 1 defendants pleading guilty at SC arraignment was somewhat larger in JOPs than in non-JOP cases in 1994-95, and somewhat smaller in the JOP than in the non-JOP cases in 1995-96. Again, this is the same pattern found for the larger caseload in these two years.

Release Status. Release status patterns at SC arraignment for Robbery 1 cases also follow the pattern for the larger caseload. In 1994-95, Robbery 1 defendants were slightly more likely to be detained in non-JOPs than in JOPs, a pattern that reverses itself in the later time period. In both time periods a greater proportion of defendants in the Robbery 1 cases in the JOPs were detained as a result of a remand order rather than because of an inability to make the set bail, which is the same pattern found in both time periods in the larger caseload.

2. SC Disposition (Tables C2 and C5) Final Disposition. At disposition, a greater proportion of Robbery 1 cases were more often disposed with guilty pleas (post-arraignment) than the proportion of all cases disposed by guilty pleas among all cases in the larger caseload. But this was true both in JOPs and in the other parts, and for both years. The comparative results remain essentially unchanged.

Release Status. As with the larger caseload, the JOPs detained a smaller proportion of Robbery 1 defendants at disposition than did the non-JOPs in 1994-95. In the next year, the use of post-disposition detention in the non-JOPs decreased for all Robbery 1 defendants as well as those in convicted cases. And as with the larger caseload, detention in Robbery 1 cases was more likely to be a result of a remand order in the JOPs. 3. SC Sentencing Following Conviction (Tables C3 and C6) Sentencing for Robbery 1 cases was more lenient, on average, than for the larger caseload. Nonetheless, comparative results for the Robbery 1 cases in JO and non-JO parts were similar to those for the larger caseload. In 1994-1995, JOPs were more

-15-

lenient in sentencing than non-JO parts, both in giving more sentences of straight probation, and in granting YO status more often. However, this apparent leniency was not found in 1995-1996.

4. Processing Times (Not shown) Processing time results for both years are essentially the same as for the larger caseload: JOPs averaged slower time to SC arraignment, faster time disposition for both detained and non-detained defendants (but fewer guilty pleas at arraignment), and considerably longer time on average to sentencing.

-16-

DISCUSSION Summary. We have presented basic SC case-processing results both in JOPs and in non-specialized parts at three principal decision points. The main comparative findings regarding JOPs were the following:

JOPs handled more than three-fourths of JO cases, excluding SCI cases.

Compared to the JOPs, the non-JOPs caseload contained relatively more Murder 2 and fewer Robbery 1 cases, and thus more serious felonies on average. Cases handled under the distinctive features of SCI processing were not assigned to the JOPs, and were proportionately more likely to contain C-felony charge class cases, the lowest severity category for JO charges subject to prosecution in the adult court system.

Among non-SCI cases, JOPs disposed proportionately more cases more often via guilty pleas than did the non-specialized parts (although guilty pleas were less likely at arraignment).

Arraignment release rates in JOP and non-JOP cases were similar in 1994-95, but defendants in JOP cases were more likely to be detained via a remand order, and in the non-JOPs via a failure to make bail. In 1995-96, JOPs detained more defendants than did the non-JOPs both at arraignment and at disposition.

In the first year, JOPs imposed more lenient sentences than other parts. This was found both in more sentences of straight probation, and more granting of YO status.

Yet, the JOPs took longer to impose these sentences, particularly for defendants released between the disposition and sentencing decision points.

Speculatively, these results may reflect JOP practices in which the defendant is given "one last chance" to show good behavior. Defendants who meet the court’s conditions, perhaps including participation in alternative-to-incarceration programs, (more than 6 months on average, before final sentence, for defendants not in detention), are then permitted to continue demonstrating their good behavior while on probation. Ultimately, if they do not violate probation their record remains sealed under YO status.

In the second year, however, JOPs were not more lenient at sentencing, although average time from disposition to the sentencing milestone continued to be considerably slower than in the non-JO parts.

Examining only Robbery 1 cases yielded essentially the same patterns as was found in the larger caseload comparisons between JOPs and non-JOPs in both time periods.

Descriptive Rather than Causal Analyses. We should note that these comparisons are very rough and reflect only aggregate results across sets of cases that are expected to differ in important ways. Thus, while these results provide some descriptive information about case processing in the specialized parts, they are not very informative about the effects that the specialized parts are having. To learn about those

-17-

effects, we would need to look carefully at whether and how the cases or defendants (e.g., in terms of criminal history) differ, and then attempt to account for those differences before comparing the outcomes.

To be able to make more definitive comparisons requires a much more ambitious research project, looking both at changes over time, and at more comparable cases. To get more comparable cases, there are two basic approaches. The first approach, exemplified by our examination of Robbery 1 cases, is to limit the comparisons to (more) comparable cases. This approach works best for eliminating the crudest differences between the sets of cases. The second approach, which can deal with subtler differences, involves using statistical techniques to equate the cases by a multiplicity of factors before doing any comparisons of outcomes.

Citywide Numbers. We should also note that this report only provides aggregate citywide processing information. Yet, we saw at the beginning of this report that the different boroughs use JOPs in different ways. For example, in late November 1992, the Bronx District Attorney’s Offices imposed restrictions on post-indictment pleas. This may have contributed to an increase in use of SCI processing in the Bronx, and also may affect time between Criminal Court arraignment and disposition, an element of court processing not examined in this research. In June 1996, the last month of arrests in the second year’s data collection, the Queens District Attorney’s Office also instituted restrictions on post-indictment plea negotiations so that court processing in Queens JO cases might look different in a time period more recent than the ones examined in this report. Thus, any attempt to understand the causes of differential activity in the different parts would need to take borough differences in court practices and prosecutorial policies into account.

Conclusions. Since the 1967 Supreme Court imposition of procedural safeguards in In Re Gault, juvenile courts have increasingly come to resemble adult criminal courts.

While some have called for the total abolition of the juvenile courts on various grounds (Feld, 1997), the widely recognized special needs of youth have led most policy makers and commentators to resist that suggestion.

However, with the recent national interest and attention on adolescent crime, many jurisdictions have modified their criminal justice procedures for handling adolescent offenders. Many states have facilitated the adult court processing of delinquent offenders by waiving jurisdiction from juvenile to adult criminal courts, either for classes of ages and crimes, and sometimes by legislative fiat, or by judicial or prosecutorial discretion. New York’s 1978 Juvenile Offender Law presages much of this present trend. The recent establishment of specialized adolescent courts within the adult court system can be seen as one attempt to retain this element of criminal responsibility while simultaneously dealing with the special needs, responsibilities, and possibilities of youth. At the same time, recent experimentation with a variety of specialized courts had increased. Thus, New York City’s specialized adult courts for adolescents represents just one instance of a growing national experiment with such courts.

-18-

As a recent development, little is yet known about how these specialized courts will affect the processing of the particular cases assigned to them, or what impact they will have on the adolescent defendants who appear in them. Thus, there is a growing need for both qualitative and quantitative examination of these experiments. This report provides only an initial statistical description of New York’s specialized adult court parts for handling juvenile offenders.

-19-

REFERENCES Beyer, M., Grisso, T., and Young, M. (1997). More than meets the eye: Rethinking assessment, competency, and sentencing for a harsher era of juvenile justice.

Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.

Corrierro, M.A. (October 1990). Youth parts: Constructive response to the challenge of youth crime. New York Law Journal.

Fagan, J. & Deschenes, E.P. (1990). Determinants of judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 314-347.

Feld, B.C. (1997). Abolish the juvenile court: Youthfulness, criminal responsibility, and sentencing policy. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 68-136.

GAO (1995). Juveniles processed in criminal court and case dispositions. (GAO/GGD95-170).

Griffin, P., Torbert, P., Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juvenile as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer provisions. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Grisso, T. (1996). Society’s retributive response to juvenile violence: A developmental perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 229-247.

Liberman, A. (1996). Case processing of juveniles in new york city’s adult and juvenile court systems during fiscal year 1992. New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. Liberman, A., Winterfield, L., & McElroy, J. (1996). Minority over-representation among juveniles in new york city’s adult and juvenile court systems during fiscal year 1992. New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc..

Liberman, A. (1997). Comparing juvenile outcomes in adult and juvenile court: A preliminary investigation. Annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego.

Singer, S. I. (1996). Recriminalizing delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Snyder, H.N. & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report Washington, D.C. : Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Strom, K.J., & Smith, S.K. (1998). Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts.

Washington. D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

-20-

EXHIBITS

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

Exhibit 1: BOROUGH USAGE OF JO PARTS: (Arrests from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996) (a): 1994-1995 (Arrests from July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995) Brooklyn N % 72 47.1%

JO PART At Neither Stage

BOROUGH OF PROSECUTION Manhattan Queens N % N % 4 3.8% 20 16.0%

Bronx N % 62 54.4%

TOTAL N % 158 31.9%

At Arraignment Only

0

0.0%

1

1.0%

4

3.2%

1

0.9%

6

1.2%

At Disposition Only

78

51.0%

6

5.8%

32

25.6%

3

2.6%

119

24.0%

At Both Arraignment and Disposition

3

2.0%

93

89.4%

69

55.2%

48

42.1%

213

42.9%

TOTAL

153 100.0% 104 100.0% 125 100.0% 114 100.0% 496 100.0% (30.8%) (21.0%) (25.2%) (23.0%) (100.0%)

(b): 1995-1996 (Arrests from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996)

JO PART At Neither Stage

Brooklyn N % 73 41.2%

BOROUGH OF PROSECUTION Manhattan Queens N % N % 4 3.5% 28 30.4%

Bronx N % 64 49.6%

TOTAL N % 169 33.0%

At Arraignment Only

0

0.0%

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

6

4.7%

7

1.4%

At Disposition Only

95

53.7%

3

2.6%

22

23.9%

1

0.8%

121

23.6%

At Both Arraignment and Disposition

9

5.1%

106

93.0%

42

45.7%

58

45.0%

215

42.0%

TOTAL

177 100.0% 114 100.0% 92 100.0% 129 100.0% 512 100.0% (34.6%) (22.3%) (18.0%) (25.2%) (100.0%)

68 cases 99% pled guilty 11% (n=66) detained* 1 case transferred to FC

11% pled guilty 61% (n=193) detained*

209 cases

12% pled guilty 57% (n=191) detained*

219 cases

67 cases

90 cases

6 cases

119 cases

213 cases

71% pled guilty 56% (n=78) detained*

96 cases

80% pled guilty 47% (n=291) detained*

332 cases

2.

SC Disposition

251 cases

3.

SC Sentence

78% straight probation 86% YO status granted (6% pending)

63 cases

35% straight probation 57% YO status granted (11% pending)

68 cases

46% straight probation 66% YO status granted (7% pending)

* Cases where detention status is not relevant are excluded (i.e., dismissals, acquittals, mistrials, warrants, pled guilty/sentence imposed, found guilty/sentence imposed, and superseded cases).

(Disposed at Arraignment)

C. SCI Cases (Non-JO Parts)

B. Non-JO Parts (Non-SCI Cases)

A. Specialized JO Parts

1.

SC Arraignment

IA. Supreme Court Outcomes (with highlighted results)

1994 - 95 JO FLOWCHART (Arrests from July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

(117) 27 (194)

(77)

IN OUT (held) (released) 26 29

1. SC Arraignment/ Disposition

1. SC Arraignment

1. SC Arraignment

95 (76)

IN OUT SAME (held) (released) DAY 150 161 0 (32) (15) (29)

IN OUT (held) (released) 134 103 (64) (40)

114 (182)

IN OUT SAME ? (held)(released)DAY(unknown) 131 149 0 63 (93) (57) (31) (1)

Days from SC Arraignment to Disposition

2. SC Disposition

122(104)

2. SC Disposition

40 (63)

IN OUT SAME (held)(released)DAY 18 44 0 (7) (55) (1)

47 (68)

IN OUT SAME (held) (released)DAY 39 63 0 (37) (28) (3)

113 (251)

IN OUT SAME (held) (released)DAY 81 148 0 (121) (125) (4)

Days from Disposition to Sentencing

3. SC Sentence

3. SC Sentence

3. SC Sentence

* Numbers outside of parentheses are the numbers of days; numbers inside the parentheses are the number of cases in the category. The number of cases in any category may not equal the number of cases shown on the more detailed tables because only cases with a known date and outcome at each decision point were used for this chart.

0 (68)

(Pre-disposition release status is not applicable)

20 (81)

IN OUT SAME ? (held) (released)DAY (unknown) 18 18 0 55 (41) (32) (3) (5)

17 (118)

IN OUT SAME ? (held) (released) DAY (unknown) 16 18 0 31 (64) (49) (2) (3)

sposed at Arraignment)

C. SCI Cases (Non-JO Parts)

B. Non-JO Parts Non-SCI Cases)

A. Specialized JO Parts

Days from Criminal Court Disposition to SC arraignment

IB. Mean Number of Days Between Decision Points*

1994 - 95 JO FLOWCHART (Arrests from July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

77 cases 96% pled guilty 26% (n=72) detained* 2 cases transferred to FC

11% pled guilty 52% (n=204) detained*

213 cases

7% pled guilty 63% (n=205) detained*

222 cases

72 cases

92 cases

2 cases

121 cases

215 cases

64% pled guilty 45% (n=78) detained*

94 cases

71% pled guilty 49% (n=290) detained*

336 cases

2.

SC Disposition

77.3% straight probation 97.0% YO status granted (2.8% pending)

72 cases

38% straight probation 62% YO status granted (18% pending)

62 cases

36% straight probation 66% YO status granted (29% pending)

242 cases

3.

SC Sentence

* Cases where detention status is not relevant are excluded (i.e., dismissals, acquittals, mistrials, warrants, pled guilty/sentence imposed, found guilty/sentence imposed, and superseded cases).

(Disposed at Arraignment)

C. SCI Cases (Non-JO Parts)

B. Non-JO Parts (Non-SCI Cases)

A. Specialized JO Parts

1.

SC Arraignment

IIA. Supreme Court Outcomes (with highlighted results)

1995 - 96 JO FLOWCHART (Arrests from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

1. SC Arraignment

1. SC Arraignment

0 days (74)

1. SC Arraignment/ Disposition

83 (68)

IN OUT SAME (held) (released) DAY 136 157 0 (25) (14) (29)

IN OUT (held) (released) 124 112 (53) (45)

89 (161)

IN OUT SAME (held)(released)DAY 93 128 0 (102) (38) (21)

89 (168)

IN OUT SAME (held) (released) DAY 63 130 0 (98) (67) (3)

Days from Disposition to Sentencing

3. SC Sentence

(66)

47

IN OUT SAME ? (held)(released) DAY (unknown) 30 53 3. SC (16) (50) Sentence

47 (50)

IN OUT SAME ? (held) (released)DAY (unknown) 2. SC 3. SC 33 59 0 79 Disposition (22) (26) (1) (1) Sentence

2. SC Disposition

119(98)

Days from SC Arraignment to Disposition

* Numbers outside of parentheses are the numbers of days; numbers inside the parentheses are the number of cases in the category. The number of cases in any category may not equal the number of cases shown on the more detailed tables because only cases with a known date and outcome at each decision point were used for this chart.

(Pre-disposition release status is not applicable)

23 (86)

IN OUT SAME MISSING (held) (released)DAY (unknown) 24 24 0 25 (22) (49) (4) (11)

IN OUT SAME MISSING (held) (released) DAY (unknown) 21 (121) 17 19 0 45 (37) (68) (2) (14)

25 (208)

IN OUT SAME MISSING (held) (released) DAY (unknown) 25 27 0 21 (101) (84) (2) (21)

posed at Arraignment)

C. SCI Cases (Non-JO Parts)

B. Non-JO Parts Non-SCI Cases)

A. Specialized JO Parts

Days from Criminal Court Disposition to SC arraignment

II.B. Mean Number of Days Between Decision Points*

1995 - 96 JO FLOWCHART (Arrests from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

APPENDIX A (1994-1995 Tables)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

A1: SC INDICTMENT CHARGE BY DEFENDANT AGE (1994-95) (a): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned and Disposed in JO Part INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

1 1 0

2 2 0

7 7 0

10 10 0

4.6 % 4.6% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

52 2 46 4

98 8 87 3

150 10 133 7

68.5% 4.6% 60.7% 3.2%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

23 17 3

36 23 4

59 40 7

26.9% 18.3% 3.2%

Missing Charge

0

3

9

12

5.5%

TOTAL

1 77 141 219 100.0% (0.5%) (35.2%) (64.4%) (100.0%)

(b): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned in Non-JO Part, Disposed in JO Part INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

1 1 0

5 5 0

6 6 0

5.0% 5.0% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

29 4 21 4

59 6 48 5

88 10 69 9

73.9% 8.4% 58.0% 7.6%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

9 6 3

16 13 3

25 19 6

21.0% 16.0% 5.0%

TOTAL

0 39 80 119 100.0% (0.0%) (32.8%) (67.2%) (100.0%)

A1: SC INDICTMENT CHARGE BY DEFENDANT AGE (1994-95) (c): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned and Disposed in Non-JO Part Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

INDICTMENT CHARGE

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

3 3 0

8 8 0

11 11 0

12.2% 12.2% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

23 2 17 4

38 5 28 5

61 7 45 9

67.8% 7.8% 50.0% 10.0%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

3 2 1

15 13 0

18 15 1

20.0% 16.7% 1.1%

Missing Charge

0

0

2

2

2.2%

TOTAL

0 29 61 90 100.0% (0.0%) (32.2%) (67.8%) (100.0%)

(d): SCI Cases Only INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 1 0

1 1 0

1.5% 1.5% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

22 0 20 2

21 1 18 2

43 1 38 4

63.2% 1.5% 55.9% 5.9%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

5 4 1

19 17 2

24 21 3

35.3% 30.9% 4.4%

TOTAL

0 27 41 68 100.0% (0.0%) (39.7%) (60.3%) (100.0%)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

A2: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR 8

1

8

Missing

9

TOTAL 26 11.9%

*Dismissed

1

1 0.5%

Returned CC

1

1

2 0.9%

Transferred FC

2

2 0.9%

Pled Not Guilty

47

53

34

30

1

165 75.3%

Missing

23

23 10.5%

TOTAL

55

54

42

40

28

219

25.1%

24.7%

19.2%

18.3%

12.8%

100.0%

28.8%

28.3%

22.0%

20.9%

Percentage of cases with a known release status

191 100.0%

* Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR Missing 4 6 2 9 1

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

1

*Dismissed

2

Transferred FC Pled Not Guilty

1 15

93

32

3 31

Missing TOTAL

9 19 9.1%

99 47.4%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 9.8% 51.3% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

35 40 16.7% 19.1% 18.1%

20.7%

16 7.7%

TOTAL 22 10.5% 1 0.5% 2 1.0% 4 1.9% 171 81.8% 9 4.3% 209 100.0% 193 100.0%

A2: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT (1994-1995) (c): SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail not Bail Remand Made Made 7 1

ROR Missing 58

TOTAL 66 97.1%

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

1

1 1.5%

Transferred FC TOTAL

1 7 10.3%

0 0.0%

1 58 1.5% 85.3%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 10.6% 0.0% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

1.5% 87.9%

2 2.9%

1 1.5% 68 100.0% 66 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

A3: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Remand 100

Bail Not Made

Bail Made

24

37

Total

Missing

ROR 98

ALL CASES 259

% of Completed Cases 84.6%

78.0% Found Guilty

3

1

4

1.3%

1.2% *Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

5

5

1.6%

1.5% *Found Guilty/Sentence Imposed

1

1

0.3%

0.3% Subtotal Convicted

103

24

37

99

6

269

87.9%

81.0% *Dismissed

18

18

5.9%

5.4% *Acquitted

6

6

2.0%

1.8% *Mistrial

1

1

0.3%

0.3% Returned CC

1

1

2

0.7%

0.6% Transferred FC

1

3

1

4

9

2.9%

2.7% Consolidated

1

1

0.3%

0.3% Subtotal Completed Cases

104

25

40

101

36

306 92.2%

Continued

4

4

5

6

19 5.7%

Temporary Order of Protection

1

1 0.3%

*Warrant Ordered

3

3 0.9%

Pled Not Guilty

1

1 0.3%

Superceded

1

1 0.3%

Subtotal Incomplete Cases

5

4

6

6

4

25 7.5%

Missing

1

1 0.3%

TOTAL

109

29

46

107

41

332

32.8%

8.7%

13.9%

32.2%

12.3%

100.0%

37.5%

10.0%

15.8%

36.8%

Percentage of cases with a known Release status

291

*Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

100.0%

100.0%

A3: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION (1994-1995) (b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 23

Found Guilty

10

7

Bail Made

Total

ROR

10

Missing

22

1

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed Subtotal Convicted

1

2 30

10

11

22

3

*Dismissed

4

*Acquitted

2

*Mistrial

2

Transferred FC Subtotal Completed Cases

1 30

10

12

5 22

*Warrant Ordered Continued Subtotal Incomplete Cases

1 3

1

3

1

0

0

Missing TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

16

1 1

33 34.4%

11 11.5%

12 12.5%

22 22.9%

42.3%

14.1%

15.4%

28.2%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

18 18.8%

ALL CASES 66 68.8% 8 8.3% 2 2.1% 76 79.2% 4 4.2% 2 2.1% 2 2.1% 6 6.3% 90 93.8% 1 1.0% 4 4.2% 5 5.2% 1 1.0% 96 100.0% 78 100.0%

% of Completed Cases 73.3% 8.9% 2.2% 84.4% 4.4% 2.2% 2.2% 6.7% 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

A4: SUPREME COURT SENTENCING (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status

Total

SENTENCE TYPE No

Yes 111

Probation Split Sentence

1

61

37

20

61 24.3%

165 65.7%

25 10.0% 15

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

4

17

Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

Unknow

61 22.7%

1

2

166 61.7%

42 15.6%

All Cases 115 42.8% 18 6.7% 118 43.9%

% of Sentenced Cases 45.8% 7.2% 47.0%

251 93.3%

100.0%

15 5.6% 3 1.1% 269 100.0%

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

No

Yes

Probation

Total

Unknow 24

Split Sentence

1

6

1

20

9

7

21 30.9%

39 57.4%

8 11.8% 6

Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

2 21 27.6%

39 51.3%

16 21.1%

All Cases 24 31.6% 8 10.5% 36 47.4%

% of Sentenced Cases 35.3% 11.8% 52.9%

68 89.5%

100.0%

6 7.9% 2 2.6% 76 100.0%

(c): SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

% of Sentenced No

Unknow

Yes

Probation

46

Split Sentence Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

3

7

All Cases 49 73.1% 7 10.4% 7 10.4%

Cases 77.8%

100.0%

2

1

4

2 3.2%

54 85.7%

7 11.1% 4

63 94.0%

11 16.4%

67 100.0%

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered TOTAL

Total

2 3.0%

54 80.6%

4 6.0%

11.1% 11.1%

APPENDIX B (1995-1996 Tables)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

B1: SC INDICTMENT CHARGE BY DEFENDANT AGE (1995-96) (a): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned and Disposed in JO Part INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

4 4 0

4 4 0

8 8 0

3.6% 3.6% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

53 4 46 3

98 6 85 7

151 10 131 10

68.0% 4.5% 59.0% 4.5%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

19 14 5

44 33 6

63 47 11

28.4% 21.2% 5.0%

Missing Charge

0

0

5

5

2.3%

TOTAL

0 76 146 222 100.0% (100.0%) (0.0%) (34.2%) (65.8%)

(b): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned in Non-JO Part, Disposed in JO Part INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

2 2 0

1 1 0

3 3 0

2.5% 2.5% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

31 4 21 6

64 7 51 6

95 11 72 12

78.5% 9.1% 59.5% 9.9%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

6 5 1

17 15 2

23 20 3

19.0% 16.5% 2.5%

TOTAL

0 39 82 121 100.0% (0.0%) (32.2%) (67.8%) (100.0%)

B1: SC INDICTMENT CHARGE BY DEFENDANT AGE (1995-96) (c): Non-SCI Cases: Arraigned and Disposed in Non-JO Part Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

INDICTMENT CHARGE

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

1 1 0

2 1 1

7 7 0

10 9 1

10.9% 9.8% 1.1%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

18 3 10 5

41 2 32 7

59 5 42 12

64.1% 5.4% 45.7% 13.0%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

7 6 1

16 9 5

23 15 6

25.0% 16.3% 6.5%

Missing Charge

0

0

2

2

2.2%

TOTAL

1 27 64 92 100.0% (1.1%) (29.3%) (69.6%) (100.0%)

(d): SCI Cases Only INDICTMENT CHARGE

Defendant's Age at Arrest 13 14 15

TOTAL

TOTAL A FELONIES: Murder 2: (125.25) Other A

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 1 0

1 1 0

1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

TOTAL B FELONIES: Att. Murder 2: (110-125.25) Robbery 1: (160.15) Other B

0 0 0 0

14 0 14 0

33 3 27 3

47 3 41 3

61.0% 3.9% 53.2% 3.9%

TOTAL C FELONIES: Robbery 2: (160.10) Other C

0 0 0

10 10 0

19 15 4

29 25 4

37.7% 32.5% 5.2%

TOTAL

0 24 53 77 100.0% (0.0%) (31.2%) (68.8%) (100.0%)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

B2: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR Missing 3

1

3

7

TOTAL 14 6.3%

*Dismissed

3

3 1.4%

Returned CC

1

1

2 0.9%

Transferred FC

2

2 0.9%

Pled Not Guilty

79

47

24

40

190 85.6%

Missing

11

11 5.0%

TOTAL

82

48

36.9% 40.0%

27

48

17

222

21.6%

12.2% 21.6%

7.7%

100.0%

23.4%

13.2% 23.4%

Percentage of cases with a known release status

205 100.0%

* Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts

Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR Missing 6 2 6 9

*Dismissed

1

Returned CC

1

Transferred FC

4

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition

Pled Not Guilty

22

76

46

37

Missing TOTAL

3 28 13.1%

78 36.6%

52 46 24.4% 21.6%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 13.7% 38.2% 25.5% 22.5% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

9 4.2%

TOTAL 23 10.8% 1 0.5% 1 0.5% 4 1.9% 181 85.0% 3 1.4% 213 100.0% 204 100.0%

B2: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT (1995-1996) (c) SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR Missing 16 3 3 50

Transferred FC

2

TOTAL 72 93.5% 2 2.6%

Missing TOTAL

3 16 20.8%

3 3.9%

3 50 3.9% 64.9%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 22.2% 4.2% 4.2% 69.4% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

5 6.5%

3 3.9% 77 100.0% 72 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

B3: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 95

23

Bail Made

Total

ROR

25

Missing

91

% of Completed Cases

ALL CASES 234

88.3%

69.6% Found Guilty

5

5

1.9%

1.5% *Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

3

3

1.1%

0.9% Subtotal Convicted

100

23

25

91

3

242

91.3%

72.0% *Dismissed

16

16

6.0%

4.8% *Acquitted

1

1

0.4%

0.3% Returned CC

1

1

2

0.8%

0.6% Transferred FC

1

2

3

1.1%

0.9% Consolidated

1

1

0.4%

0.3% Subtotal Completed Cases

101

23

25

93

23

265 78.9%

Continued

6

9

7

22

1

1

44 13.1%

Temporary Order of Protection

2 0.6%

* Warrant Ordered

6

6 1.8%

Pled Not Guilty

2

2 0.6%

Subtotal Incomplete Cases

6

11

8

23

6

54 16.1%

Missing

17

17 5.1%

TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

107

34

33

116

46

336

31.8%

10.1%

9.8%

34.5%

13.7%

100.0%

36.9%

11.7%

11.4%

40.0%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

290 100.0%

100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

B3: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION (1995-1996) (b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 20

Found Guilty

5

Bail Made

Total

ROR

14

Missing

19

1

2

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed Subtotal Convicted

1 22

5

14

19

2

*Dismissed

2

Returned CC

1

Transferred FC

5

Subtotal Completed Cases Continued

22

5

14

19

2

6

7

2

*Warrant Ordered

1

Pled Not Guilty Subtotal Incomplete Cases

2

6

7

1

1

3

2

Missing TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

10

4 24 25.5%

11 11.7%

21 22.3%

22 23.4%

30.8%

14.1%

26.9%

28.2%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

16 17.0%

ALL CASES 59 62.8% 2 2.1% 1 1.1% 62 66.0% 2 2.1% 1 1.1% 5 5.3% 70 74.5% 17 18.1% 1 1.1% 2 2.1% 20 21.3% 4 4.3% 94 100.0% 78 100.0%

% of Completed Cases 84.3% 2.9% 1.4% 88.6% 2.9% 1.4% 7.1% 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

B4: Supreme Court Sentencing (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status

Total

SENTENCE TYPE No

Yes

Unknow

Probation

61

Split Sentence

12

Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

49

38

8

49 29.2%

111 66.1%

8 4.8% 70

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing

4

TOTAL

49 20.2%

111 45.9%

82 33.9%

All Cases 61 25.2% 12 5.0% 95 39.3%

% of Sentenced Cases 36.3% 7.1% 56.5%

168 69.4%

100.0%

70 28.9% 4 1.7% 242 100.0%

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

No

Yes

Probation

Unknow 17

2

6

1

12

8

4

12 24.0%

31 62.0%

7 14.0% 11

Split Sentence Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

Total

1 12 19.4%

31 50.0%

19 30.6%

All Cases 19 30.6% 7 11.3% 24 38.7%

% of Sentenced Cases 38.0% 14.0% 48.0%

50 80.6%

100.0%

11 17.7% 1 1.6% 62 100.0%

(c): SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE Probation

No

Yes 1

Split Sentence Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

Unknow 50 5

1

9

2 3.0%

64 97.0%

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

64 88.9%

All Cases 51 70.8% 5 6.9% 10 13.9%

0 0.0% 2

66 91.7%

2 2.8%

72 100.0%

4 6 8.3%

Total

2 2.8% 4 5.6%

% of Sentenced Cases 77.3% 7.6% 15.2% 100.0%

APPENDIX C ROBBERY 1 TABLES

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C1: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts

Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR 6

1

7

Missing

8

TOTAL 22 16.5%

*Dismissed

1

1 0.8%

Pled Not Guilty

27

36

19

16

1

99 74.4%

Missing

11

11 8.3%

TOTAL

33

37

26

24

13

133

24.8%

27.8%

19.5%

18.0%

9.8%

100.0%

27.5%

30.8%

21.7%

20.0%

Percentage of cases with a known release status

120 100.0%

* Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Release Status Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 2 5

Bail Made

ROR Missing 8

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed Pled Not Guilty

1 2

57

17

19

Missing TOTAL

3 4 62 3.5% 54.4%

17 27 14.9% 23.7%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 3.6% 56.4% 15.5% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

24.5%

4 3.5%

TOTAL 15 13.2% 1 0.9% 95 83.3% 3 2.6% 114 100.0% 110 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C2: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 62

18

Bail Made

Total

ROR

25

Missing

66

% of Completed Cases

ALL CASES 171

91.9%

85.9% Found Guilty

1

1

0.5%

0.5% *Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

2

2

1.1%

1.0% Subtotal Convicted

62

18

25

67

2

174

93.5%

87.4% *Dismissed

9

9

4.8%

4.5% *Acquitted

1

1

0.5%

0.5% Transferred FC

1

1

2

1.1%

1.0% Subtotal Completed Cases

62

19

25

67

13

186 93.5%

Continued

1

2

2

4

9 4.5%

*Warrant Ordered

2

2 1.0%

Pled Not Guilty

1

1 0.5%

Subtotal Incomplete Cases

2

2

2

4

2

12 6.0%

Missing

1

1 0.5%

TOTAL

64

21

27

71

16

199

32.2%

10.6%

13.6%

35.7%

8.0%

100.0%

35.0%

11.5%

14.8%

38.8%

Percentage of cases with a known release status

183

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

100.0%

100.0%

C2: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1994-1995) (b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 12

8

Bail Made

Total

ROR 3

Missing

14

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed Subtotal Convicted

1 12

8

3

14

1

*Dismissed

2

*Acquitted

2

*Mistrial

2

Subtotal Completed Cases

12

8

3

14

*Warrant Ordered Continued Subtotal Incomplete Cases

1 1

1

1

1

0

0

Missing TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

7

1 1

13 27.1%

9 18.8%

3 6.3%

14 29.2%

33.3%

23.1%

7.7%

35.9%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

9 18.8%

ALL CASES 37 77.1% 1 2.1% 38 79.2% 2 4.2% 2 4.2% 2 4.2% 44 91.7% 1 2.1% 2 4.2% 3 6.3% 1 2.1% 48 100.0% 39 100.0%

% of Completed Cases 84.1% 2.3% 86.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C3: SUPREME COURT SENTENCING: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1994-1995) (a): Specialized JO Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

No

Yes

Unknown

Total % of Sentenced Cases All Cases 79 48.5% 45.4% 14 8.6% 8.0% 70 42.9% 40.2%

Probation

75

4

Split Sentence

13

1

31

29

10

31 19.0%

117 71.8%

15 9.2%

163 93.7%

9

9 5.2% 2 1.1%

Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

31 17.8%

1

1

118 67.8%

25 14.4%

100.0%

174 100.0%

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

No

Yes

Probation Split Sentence Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered TOTAL

Unknown 13

Total % of Sentenced Cases All Cases 13 38.2% 34.2% 5 14.7% 13.2% 16 47.1% 42.1%

4

1

8

3

5

8 23.5%

20 58.8%

6 17.6%

34 89.5%

4

4 10.5% 38 100.0%

8 21.1%

20 52.6%

10 26.3%

100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C4: SUPREME COURT ARRAIGNMENT: ROBBERY 1 (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition

Release Status Bail Not Bail Remand Made Made ROR Missing

Pled Guilty

1

3

3

TOTAL 7 5.3%

Pled Not Guilty

42

31

17

28

118 90.1%

Missing

6

6 4.6%

TOTAL

42

32

20

31

6

131

32.1%

24.4%

15.3%

23.7%

4.6%

100.0%

Percentage of cases with a known

125

release status 33.6% 25.6% 16.0% 24.8% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

100.0%

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Supreme Court Arraignment Disposition Pled Guilty

Release Status Bail Not Remand Made 3 2

Bail Made 2

ROR Missing 6

*Dismissed

1

Returned CC

1

Pled Not Guilty

8

42

25

22

Missing TOTAL

2 11 9.6%

44 38.6%

27 28 23.7% 24.6%

Percentage of cases with a known release status 10.0% 40.0% 24.5% 25.5% * Release status values are not applicable for these categories.

4 3.5%

TOTAL 13 11.4% 1 0.9% 1 0.9% 97 85.1% 2 1.8% 114 100.0% 110 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C5: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 53

17

Bail Made

Total

ROR

19

Missing

59

ALL CASES

% of Completed Cases

148

91.9%

74.4% *Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed

2

2

1.2%

1.0% Subtotal Convicted

53

17

19

59

2

150

93.2%

75.4% *Dismissed

9

9

5.6%

4.5% *Acquitted

1

1

0.6%

0.5% Transferred FC

1

1

0.6%

0.5% Subtotal Completed Cases

53

17

19

60

12

161 80.9%

Continued

1

6

3

15

25 12.6%

* Warrant Ordered

4

4 2.0%

Pled Not Guilty

1

1 0.5%

Subtotal Incomplete Cases

1

7

3

15

4

30 15.1%

Missing

8

8 4.0%

TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

54

24

22

75

24

199

27.1%

12.1%

11.1%

37.7%

12.1%

100.0%

30.9%

13.7%

12.6%

42.9%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

175 100.0%

100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C5: SUPREME COURT DISPOSITION: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1995-1996) (b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Release Status

Supreme Court Disposition Pled Guilty

Bail Not Remand Made 10

5

Bail Made

Total

ROR 4

Missing

11

*Pled Guilty/Sentence Imposed Subtotal Convicted

1 1

10

5

4

11

2

*Dismissed

2

Returned CC

1

Subtotal Completed Cases

10

Continued

5

4

11

3

1

1

Pled Not Guilty Subtotal Incomplete Cases

1 0

3

1

1

Missing TOTAL Percentage of cases with a known release status

5

1 3

10 22.7%

8 18.2%

5 11.4%

12 27.3%

28.6%

22.9%

14.3%

34.3%

* Release status values are inapplicable for these categories.

9 20.5%

ALL CASES 31 70.5% 1 2.3% 32 72.7% 2 4.5% 1 2.3% 35 79.6% 5 11.4% 1 2.3% 6 13.6% 3 6.8% 44 100.0% 35 100.0%

% of Completed Cases 88.6% 2.9% 91.4% 5.7% 2.9% 100.0%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

C6: SUPREME COURT SENTENCING: ROBBERY 1 CHARGES (1995-1996) (a): Specialized JO Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE

No

Yes

Missing

Probation

41

Split Sentence

10

Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

22

24

5

22 21.6%

75 73.5%

5 4.9%

102 68.0%

45

45 30.0% 3 2.0%

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered Missing TOTAL

Total % of Sentenced Cases All Cases 41 40.2% 27.3% 10 9.8% 6.7% 51 50.0% 34.0%

3 22 14.7%

75 50.0%

53 35.3%

100.0%

150 100.0%

(b): Non-SCI Cases in the Non-Specialized Parts Granted Youthful Offender Status SENTENCE TYPE Probation

No

Yes

Split Sentence Imprisonment Subtotal Sentenced

Missing 11 4

5

7

1

5 17.2%

22 75.9%

2 6.9%

29 90.6%

3

3 9.4%

5 15.6%

32 100.0%

Sentence Pending/ Warrant Ordered TOTAL

1

Total % of Sentenced Cases All Cases 12 41.4% 37.5% 4 13.8% 12.5% 13 44.8% 40.6%

5 15.6%

22 68.8%

100.0%

APPENDIX D JO Charge Table

D1: Juvenile Offender Charges in New York Offense

Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree Arson in the second degree Burglary in the first degree Attempted kidnapping in the first degree Manslaughter in the first degree Attempted murder in the second degree Rape in the first degree Robbery in the first degree Sodomy in the first degree

150.20 135.25 125.25 (1) (2) 125.25 (3)** 130.70 150.15 140.30 110/135.25 125.20 110/125.25 130.35 (1) (2) 160.15 130.50 (1) (2)

A A A A B B B B B B B B B

Defendant’s Age 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15

Burglary in the second degree Robbery in the second degree Assault in the first degree

140.25 (1) 160.10 (2) 120.10 (1) (2)

C C C*

14, 15 14, 15 14, 15

Arson in the first degree Kidnapping in the first degree Murder in the second degree

Penal Law

Felony Class

* Assault in the first degree was upgraded to a Class-B felony in November 1996. ** But only where the underlying crime is also a JO offense.